The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In other words, the Defendant’s act is merely a loan to a customer who wants a short term room among the notified facilities, and does not constitute lodging business.

(2) The notified original business constitutes a lodging business that is subject to value-added tax, and thus does not have a duty to report under Article 3(1) of the Public Sanitary Control Act.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (an amount of KRW 800,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Determination of the misapprehension of the legal doctrine as to the assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine (1) refers to the act of providing continuously and repeatedly services, such as facilities and equipment, which make customers able to sleep and stay for profit (see Supreme Court Decision 2013Do7947, Dec. 12, 2013). Determination as to whether a lodging business constitutes a lodging business may be reasonably determined by taking into account the following circumstances: (a) content of facilities and services provided to the users of the relevant facility; (b) method and payment system of usage fees; (c) period of use of the relevant facility; (d) existence of a facility user’s independent possession and management authority; (e) the subject of the obligation to preserve and manage the relevant facility; (e) the structure of the building; (f) the scale of guest rooms;

In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, namely, the Defendant’s act constitutes accommodation business, comprehensively taking into account the following circumstances: (a) the Defendant provided foreign tourists with three bedclothess in the room of the Gosiwon C, with accommodation charges of KRW 15,00 per day; (b) providing them with services, such as cleaning of a room, bedclothes, and exchange of bedclothess; and (c) advertising on the Internet accommodation reservation site for accommodation recruitment.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's argument is without merit.

(2) The Defendant was registered as an entrepreneur under the Value-Added Tax Act with respect to the notified party’s business

Even if the substance of the business is the accommodation business.