A defendant shall be punished by a fine of 500,000 won.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant is a person who operates a general restaurant of “D” on the Suwon-si C and the 1st underground level.

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

Nevertheless, around 01:00 on August 26, 2017, the Defendant violated the code of practice of food service providers by allowing E, a customer, to have sound and reflect facilities in the general restaurant “D” and allowing E, a customer, to have singing.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Partial statement of the witness F;

1. On-site photographs and certificates of business reports;

1. On-site video files (the defendant and his defense counsel are used only when there are interviews, such as locks and sound facilities installed in D, and they allow them to sing by using the above facilities under the influence of alcohol at the time of the instant case;

It argues that there is no fact that E is permitted to sing.

However, in light of the internal structure of D and its usual business methods, etc., which can be seen by the above evidence, it is difficult to view D as a restaurant holding a meeting room for live order or locking for D, and as long as E, despite the Defendant’s strong restraints, it is not for itself to flive and singing into a singing, even if the Defendant’s assertion is based on the Defendant’s assertion, the fact that the Defendant allowed E to sing out the singing can be sufficiently recognized, so the above argument cannot be accepted).

Application of Statutes

1. Article 97 subparagraph 6 of the relevant Act and Articles 97 and 44 (1) 8 of the Food Sanitation Act concerning facts constituting an offense, and selection of fines;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. The fact that the sentencing of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the Provisional Payment Order does not mislead and reflect the accused, etc. is disadvantageous, and there are circumstances that may be considered in light of the circumstances leading to the Defendant’s violation.