1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. The Plaintiff is running a singing practice room business in Sacheon-si B with the trade name of “C singing practice room business” (hereinafter “instant business”).

On September 5, 2014, the Defendant issued a disposition to order the Plaintiff to suspend the business of March of the instant establishment (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that the Plaintiff sold and supplied alcoholic beverages to customers around June 24, 2014 (the third violation) at the instant establishment (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Evidence No. 3, Evidence No. 1, and the purport of the whole pleading

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. Since the Plaintiff’s assertion at the instant business establishment did not sell and provide alcoholic beverages to customers around June 24, 2014, the instant disposition was made by mistake of the fact and was unlawful.

B. The facts found guilty of the same facts in the administrative judgment are significant evidence. Thus, it cannot be acknowledged that there is no special circumstance where it is difficult to adopt a factual judgment in the criminal trial in light of other evidence.

(1) In light of the purport of the entire argument in the statement of evidence No. 19, the Plaintiff, at the instant business establishment on June 24, 2014, was sentenced to a judgment of KRW 2 million on June 16, 2016 (the Changwon District Court Decision 2016No488), and the judgment becomes final and conclusive. In light of the special circumstances where the fact-finding of the above criminal judgment is rejected in this case, the Plaintiff deemed that the Plaintiff sold and provided alcoholic beverages to customers D and E around June 24, 2014 at the instant business establishment, on the following grounds: (a) the Plaintiff, at around June 24, 2014; and (b) the disposition of this case is lawful, deeming that the Plaintiff sold and provided alcoholic beverages to customers around June 24, 2014.

3. The plaintiff's claim for conclusion is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.