1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation concerning this case is as follows, except for the modification of the pertinent part of the judgment of the first instance as to this case as follows 2. Thus, it is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance (including “related Acts and subordinate statutes,” but excluding the part “3. conclusion”). Thus, it is acceptable in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The following shall be added to the right side of the 9 line below the 6 pages of the modified part:

【Standards for calculating penalty surcharges imposed in lieu of the disposition of business suspension, etc.” under Article 53 [Attachment 1] of the Enforcement Decree of the Food Sanitation Act, which applies in this case, provides that the amount of penalty surcharges equivalent to one day of business suspension is differentiated according to the annual sales standards classified as 26 grades. Barring any special circumstance, losses caused by business suspension are proportional to annual sales, and in light of the amount of penalty surcharges corresponding to one day of business suspension under the above disposition standards and the ratio of sales to the amount of penalty surcharges corresponding to one day of business suspension and the amount of penalty surcharges corresponding to one day of business suspension pursuant to the above disposition standards, it is difficult to view that the above disposition standards do not conform to the Constitution

) The following shall be added to the right side of the last 6th parallel “less see”:

[The title holder of food business permission under the Food Sanitation Act is responsible for the administrative liability of the employees for the violation of the administrative laws and regulations of the employees of the business establishment, and the employees were not aware of such violation.

In other words, it is not different (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 92Nu18726, May 25, 1993). In cases where an employee was suspended from indictment as in the instant case, even if the employee was subject to suspension of indictment, this does not mean that Article 89 [Attachment Table 2

Ⅰ. The phrase “relevant violations” as provided in subparagraph 15 (f) of the General Standards.