The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of 1.5 million won.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. At the time of the instant case, the Defendant, at the time of the instant case, sold drinking to two female customers who visited a singing practice room together with LA who operated a restaurant at the Defendant’s singing practice room, and to one male customer, and there is no fact that D sold drinking.

However, immediately after the fact of selling alcoholic beverages to the police, D, which was known to the usual place, visited the singing practice room, and the defendant asked D to speak that D, who was able to get a guest, had the drinked.

D, while making a false statement at the police, it did not have been a contact with the reduction of burden, but in the court of the court below, it stated that it was not in a singing practice room at the time of the police control and it was true that it was not in a singing practice room at the time of the police control, and that there was no drinking or a contact loan, the court below rejected D's legal statement at the court below and found the defendant guilty of violating the Music Industry Promotion Act due to a contact loan brokerage based on the police statement.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (three million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the misconception of facts as to the violation of the Music Industry Promotion Act due to the arrangement of entertainment loans

A. The Defendant in this part of the facts charged is a karaoke machine business operator who operates a “Cinging machine” in Kujin-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government B.

On May 18, 2017, a karaoke machine business operator was prohibited from employing and mediating a entertainment loan. On May 18, 2017, the Defendant received KRW 70,000 from D, who was demanded by the said singing practice room business operator, to receive a letter of helper from the customer D, and had two female-in-fact female-in-fact female-in female-related loans attend the said D to drink with the said D and arrange a entertainment loan.

B. The lower court determined that two U.S.C. were first two although D did not actively ask the police about the referral of a contact loan.