logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대법원 2016.12.15 2016도8070
식품위생법위반
Text

The appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. A person who intends to engage in food service business under Article 36 (1) 3 of the Food Sanitation Act shall be equipped with facilities meeting the facility standards prescribed by Ordinance of the Prime Minister, and the detailed types and scope of food service business under paragraph (2) of the same Article shall be prescribed by Presidential Decree;

According to delegation, Article 21 Subparag. 8(d) of the Enforcement Decree of the Food Sanitation Act provides that entertainment bar business among food service businesses mainly prepares and sells alcoholic beverages is a business where workers engaged in entertainment may be employed, or entertainment facilities may be installed, and customers may sing or dance. Article 22(2) provides that “entertainment facilities” refers to dance halls installed to enable workers engaged in entertainment or customers to dance.

Meanwhile, Article 36 of the Enforcement Rule of the Food Sanitation Act and Article 14 of the attached Table stipulate the facility standards for food service business under Article 36 of the Food Sanitation Act. According to this, the place of business of food service business must be separated, subdivided, or separated from the facilities used for purposes other than the business license or the business report of food service business.

Therefore, entertainment taverns equipped with entertainment facilities under the Food Sanitation Act refers to a place where a dance hall is installed so that they can dance mainly at a place where alcoholic beverages are cooked and sold.

The place of installation is not limited to indoors, and installed outside of rooms are included in entertainment taverns.

2. The summary of the facts charged in this case is as follows.

From the summer in 2009 to August 2, 2014, the Defendant installed a swimming pool of 1, table 30, stage 30, lighting facilities, and sound equipment without obtaining permission from the competent authorities. The Defendant employed a professional DNA (DJ) to make music up for music, and made visits from KRW 20,000 to KRW 50,000.

arrow