The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, and improper sentencing)

A. The instant call text, operated by the Defendant by misunderstanding the facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine, does not constitute amusement facilities under the Enforcement Decree of the Building Act.

In addition, the Defendant had justifiable grounds to believe that his act was not a crime under the law by fulfilling his duty of inquiry by a public official in charge prior to the operation of the instant call text, and thus, the Defendant was dismissed from the Defendant’s responsibility pursuant to Article 16 of the Criminal Act or did not have the Defendant’s intention to change

must be viewed.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (2 million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Article 3-5 of the Enforcement Decree of the Building Act provides for the types of buildings according to the purpose of the Building Act in [Attachment 1] to determine misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine. It is reasonable to view that a dance hall refers to a place where a dance facility can dance without charge, regardless of the type of dancing which it teaches (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Do5130, Jan. 25, 2007). The following circumstances revealed by evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, namely, ① “heatx” is a place where the Defendant would not sell alcohol as a dance facility,” and this includes “a place where the Defendant would be able to enjoy an admission fee to a dance facility,” and “a place where the Defendant would be able to enjoy an admission fee to a dance facility,” and “a place where the Defendant would be able to enjoy an admission fee to a dance facility,” and “a place where the Defendant would be able to enjoy an admission to a dance facility,” under the former Enforcement Decree of the Building Act.