logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원 해남지원 2016.08.18 2016고정48
식품위생법위반
Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,000,000.

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

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is a person who operates C head office in B.

In order to conduct a dan business, he/she shall obtain permission from the head of the Food and Drug Safety Agency or the head of the Si/Gun/Gu having jurisdiction over a branch office of a Special Self-Governing Province.

Nevertheless, the Defendant stated, without permission for the number of the Navy, that “C from November 30, 2015 to December 21:37 of the same day” in the name of “C from 50 to 21:37 of the building located in the building located in the south-west Navy B of South Korea,” 13 tables, 16 children, small wave 17, one sound device, one micro device, etc., and talks with the majority of the above device, and approximately KRW 100,000 per day average of KRW 30,000,000,000 per day,” but the evidence submitted by the prosecution alone is insufficient to recognize the fact that the Defendant operated the said unit and made up sales equivalent to the above amount. As such, the Defendant revised the facts charged based on the sales recognized by the police.

A considerable amount of alcoholic beverages, beer, and alcoholic beverages were cooked and sold, and then engaged in danran business.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. A certificate of business report;

1. Video CDs and field photographs;

1. A report on the generation (food Sanitation Act);

1. An investigation report (as to the attachment of videos in the C head office) (as to the attachment of videos in a open space, the Defendant does not constitute a violation of the Food Sanitation Act solely on the basis that the Defendant simply sing out of TV channels, singing out, and singing with the customers, among TV channels, does not constitute a violation of the Food Sanitation Act

The argument is asserted.

However, according to the court's legitimate examination of evidence, the defendant reported "general restaurant" and operated "Chof house" as stated in the facts constituting a crime. According to Article 21 subparagraph 8(b) of the Enforcement Decree of the Food Sanitation Act, a general restaurant business is "business of cooking and selling food, which allows drinking along with meals" and "business of operating food."

arrow