The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts) is that the Defendant engaged in a music record or music video production business (hereinafter “music record or music video production business”) pursuant to Article 2 subparagraph 8 of the Music Industry Promotion Act (hereinafter “ Music Industry Act”), and even if the Defendant did not operate a singing practice room business, it is erroneous in the judgment of the court below that recognized the Defendant to run a singing practice room business, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. The Defendant also asserted as the grounds for appeal, and the lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion and convicted the Defendant of the facts charged on the following grounds.

Whether the substance of the business is a sound record manufacturing business or a singing practice room business shall be determined in consideration of what kind of business conforms to any of Article 2 subparag. 8 or 2 subparag. 13 of the Music Industry Act.

“Planning production” of music records, etc. under Article 2 subparag. 8 of the Music Industry Act refers to the business of producing music records, etc. through the process of arrangement, singing recording, mixing, etc. by selecting a group of persons, etc. for the purpose of distributing them and offering them for viewing. “Uniform production” refers to a business of mass reproduction of music records, etc. for the purpose of distributing them to many people and offering them for viewing.

The mere recording of a singing room at the customer’s request or photographing of video images and allowing the principal form of the business to practice singing, and if the principal interest arises through the singing practice service, such business act cannot be deemed as an act of planning and producing a music record or producing a reproduction.

B. According to the following circumstances, the business run by the Defendant C (hereinafter “instant”)