A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant is a person who operates a singing practice room with the trade name “C” in Ansan-si, a member B of Ansan-si.

1. Any karaoke machine business operator who has violated the Music Industry Promotion Act due to sale or supply of alcoholic beverages shall be prohibited from selling or providing any alcoholic beverage;

Nevertheless, around 01:40 on July 7, 2019, the Defendant sold and supplied three customers, such as cans, 12 cans, and so on.

2. No person who violates the Music Industry Promotion Act by arranging entertainment shall drink alcoholic beverages with customers, provide entertainment services to customers by singing or dancing, or arrange other persons to provide such services, in a singing practice room for profit;

Nevertheless, the defendant had E, F, and G receive KRW 30,00 per hour from three customers D, etc. who entered three times for profit at the time and place mentioned in the above Paragraph 1, and had them provide entertainment to customers by singing together with the above customers, etc.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Each police suspect interrogation protocol of G, E, F, and H;

1. Each statement of E, G, and F;

1. Scenic photographs;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes for reporting internal accidents;

1. Articles 34 (3) 2 and 22 (1) 3 (the point of providing alcoholic beverage sales) of the Music Industry Promotion Act, Articles 34 (4) and 22 (2) of the Music Industry Promotion Act, and the choice of imprisonment for each sentence concerning criminal facts;

1. Of concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act;

1. Circumstances unfavorable to the reasons for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act: A normal situation in which the crime of this case is committed in favor of the fact that there was a history of having been punished eight times for the same crime including one time before the suspension of execution from 2009 to 2019, and that the crime of this case is not good for committing the same crime among those tried for the same crime: