The judgment of the first instance is reversed in full.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of two million won.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The written statement of the Defendant’s employee C’s written statement of misunderstanding of facts (as to the part not guilty in the first instance trial) is prepared at the initial stage of the investigation, and is most reliable, and is written in such written statement that the Defendant has singinged.

In addition, in light of the fact that the employee C was punished for the criminal facts that the employee C was singing out, it is sufficiently recognized that C, the employee of the defendant, had a singing voice in relation to the defendant's work, such as the facts charged.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court of first instance that acquitted on the ground of lack of proof is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The first deliberation type of sentencing (one million won in penalty) is too unhued and unfair.

2. In full view of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the first instance court and the first instance court (with respect to the acquittal portion of the first instance judgment), as to the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts (in particular, the Defendant’s statement in the court of the trial and each protocol of interrogation of the Defendant’s prosecutor’s investigation as to C), it is sufficiently recognized that C, an employee of the Defendant, has a voice of singing in relation to the Defendant’s duties, as described in this part of the facts charged.

3. If so, the Prosecutor’s assertion of mistake of facts is with merit, so the judgment of the first instance court is reversed pursuant to Articles 364(2) and 364(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act without further proceeding to decide on the improper sentencing, and the following is again decided after pleading.

[Grounds for the judgment to be used again] The criminal history C is an employee of the sing practice hall in the name of “Esing” on the first underground of Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D, and the defendant is the singing practice hall operator who operates the above singing.

No singing practice room business operator shall sell or offer any alcoholic beverage.

Nevertheless, on April 4, 2012, C around 03:15, at around 03:5, the above singing practice room to F who is a customer, three can cans for liquor to F.