The defendant is innocent. The summary of this judgment shall be notified publicly.

1. The Defendant is a person who operates a general restaurant in the name of “D” in the Yansan-gu, Jeonju-si.

No general restaurant operator shall be equipped with sound and reflective facilities and allow customers to sing.

Nevertheless, at around September 22, 2012, the Defendant, at around September 22, 2012, equipped with singing musical instruments and other fora, and had customers sing to music.

As a result, the defendant did not observe the code of practice of a searcher.

2. The Defendant and his defense counsel asserted that the Defendant did not operate D’s restaurant (hereinafter “D”) on September 1, 2012, the date and time of the charge, and that the aforementioned date and time was operated by E, the former owner of the business, and that the Defendant operated the above restaurant from September 10, 2012.

On the other hand, each evidence is inadmissible since the defendant agrees to deny the contents of the interrogation protocol of the police against the defendant, the confirmation document prepared by the defendant, and the investigation report in which the contents of the telephone with the defendant are written.

Meanwhile, according to the F’s report and the photograph of September 1, 2012, the facts that the instant restaurant operator committed an act in violation of the Food Sanitation Act on September 1, 2012 can be acknowledged. However, the witness E testified in this court that he operated the instant restaurant on the said date, and the above statement that the said witness gave rise to the risk of punishment, appears to be reliable, and the above statement that the above witness took charge of the risk of punishment, and the food service business business operator’s management ledger (Evidence No. 14 pages) entered G up to September 5, 2012, and entered as H (the birth of the Defendant) from the same date, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to acknowledge the fact that the Defendant operated the instant restaurant on the same date as the facts charged, and it is otherwise recognized.