In a case where a person who had operated a bowling site prior to the enforcement of the Installation and Utilization of Sports Facilities Act fails to accept the report of the sports facility business on the ground that the building where a bowling site is located is an unauthorized building within the period prescribed in Article 3 (3) of the Addenda of the same Act, which has equipped with safety management and sanitation standards among the standards for facilities and equipment prescribed in Article 5

In accordance with Article 3 (3) of the Addenda to the Installation and Utilization of Sports Facilities Act, if a person who had operated a bowling place prior to the enforcement date of the said Act has reported as a sports facility business by meeting only safety management and sanitation standards among the standards for facilities and equipment prescribed in Article 5 of the said Act within six months from the enforcement date of the said Act, the said report is legitimate, and since there is no direct relationship with the safety management and sanitation standards that the building in which the bowling place is located should not be an unauthorized building, the said report shall be deemed to be valid as a report under Article 8 of the said Act and Article 3 (3) of the Addenda of the said Act, even if the said building was rejected without accepting the said report on the ground that it was against the Building Act because it was an unauthorized building.

Articles 5 and 8 of the Installation and Utilization of Sports Facilities Act, Article 3 (3) of the Addenda to the Installation and Utilization of Sports Facilities Act

A

Prosecutor

Attorney B

Seoul Criminal Court Decision 92No1722 delivered on May 20, 1992

The appeal is dismissed.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. According to Article 5 of the Installation and Utilization of Sports Facilities Act, sports facility business entities shall have facilities and equipment (including safety and hygiene standards) prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Youth for each type of sports facility business and maintain and manage them. Article 8 of the same Act provides that a person who intends to operate a sports facility business shall prepare the facilities and equipment under Article 5 and report to the Mayor/Do governor. Article 22 (2) of the same Act provides that a person who operates a sports facility business without such report shall be punished. However, Articles 1 and 3 (3) of the Addenda of the same Act shall enter into force from July 1, 1989. Article 1 and 3 (3) of the same Act shall not be registered or reported as a sports facility business under the same Act within six months from the date of entry into force of the same Act. In such cases, the facility standards (excluding safety and hygiene standards) under Article 5 shall not apply to the sports facility business.

2. According to the records, the defendant operated a bowling Chapter from the end of April 1985, and according to the facts recognized by the court below, the bowling Chapter business was not registered or reported under other Acts until the same Act enters into force, but it was a business to be reported as a sports facility business under Article 8 and Article 4(1)2 of the same Act, and Article 3(1)3 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act. Thus, the defendant reported the sports facility business to the Mapo-gu Office (the other party to the report was the Seoul Metropolitan Government Mayor) on December 15, 1989, which was within six months from the enforcement date of the same Act, but the head of Mapo-gu Office rejected the report without accepting the report on the ground that the fourth floor of the building where the bowling place is located is an unauthorized building and thus, it was against the Building Act

3. However, as the defendant who had operated a bowling place prior to the enforcement of the same Act, if he met only the safety management and sanitation standards among the standards for facilities and equipment as stipulated in Article 5 of the same Act until December 31, 1989, the report shall be deemed lawful. The fact that the 4th floor of the building where the bowling place is located should not be an unauthorized building is not directly related to the above safety management and sanitation standards.

4. Thus, in this case where there is no evidence to deem that the defendant reported the above sports facility business without any other reason in violation of the safety management and sanitation standards under the same Act, the defendant's report on December 15, 1989 shall be valid as a report under Article 8 of the same Act and Article 3 (3) of the Addenda of the same Act without any separate measures such as acceptance disposition by the administrative agency. Thus, the defendant cannot be deemed to have operated the bowlinging business without any report. In this regard, the court below maintained the judgment of the court of the first instance that acquitted the defendant on the ground that the defendant's report on December 15, 1989 was legitimate report under the same Act and the facts charged in this case did not constitute a case where there is no proof of a crime, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the rules of evidence or misunderstanding the legal principles of "if the defendant operates the business without any report" under the same Act.

5. In addition, Article 8(a) of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act provides that the sports facility business shall be submitted along with a certified copy of the real estate register on the premise that the building intended to operate the sports facility business is a registered building. However, the above Enforcement Rule provides that a certified copy of the building management ledger or a certified copy of the land cadastre if there is no certified copy of the real estate register, and a document to prove the right to use the real estate if it is owned by another person shall be attached. Whether the building is registered or permitted shall not be accepted since there is no direct relation with the safety and sanitation standards. Therefore, there

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Choi Young-young (Presiding Justice)