The meaning of "a person who operates an amusement business affecting the public morals" subject to the regulation of Article 3 of the Act on the Regulation of Amusement Businesses Affecting the Public Morals, and whether a person who operates a business without obtaining registration of the business after completing the registration of the business and having the recorded facilities shall be subject to the regulation of

A person who runs an amusement business subject to regulation under Article 3 of the Act on the Regulation of Amusement Businesses Affecting Public Morals, refers to a person who actually runs a business falling under the scope of the amusement business prescribed in Article 2 of the same Act without asking whether permission, authorization, registration, or report as prescribed by individual Acts exists, and thus, even though a person who is equipped with a recording facility that cannot be viewed as a general singing practice room and has completed his/her business by using a mark "recording room" in the compact disc or recorded tape, or by using a mark "recording room instead of singing" in his/her trade name, he/she is subject to regulation under Article 3 of the same Act, if the actual contents of his/her business are equipped with the facility such as video or non-recording device so as to put his/her singing in line with the anti-state without the musical owner and receives an admission fee or facility use fee, such a person who runs a singing room business falls under "sing room business" under Article 2 subparagraph 6 of the same Act and Article 2 subparagraph 5 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act.

Articles 2, 3, and 10 of the Act on the Regulation of Amusement Businesses Affecting Public Morals, Article 2 subparagraph 5 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Regulation of Amusement Businesses Affecting Public Morals

Supreme Court Decision 96Ma229 delivered on April 19, 1996 (Gong1996Sang, 1541) Supreme Court Decision 97Do3099 delivered on February 13, 1998 (Gong1998Sang, 833)

Defendant

Defendant

Changwon District Court Decision 98No47 delivered on April 7, 1998

The appeal is dismissed.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

A person who runs an amusement business affecting the public morals under Article 3 of the Act on the Regulation of Amusement Businesses Affecting the Public Morals (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) refers to a person who actually runs a business falling under the scope of the amusement business specified in Article 2 of the Act without asking whether permission, authorization, registration, or report prescribed by individual Acts exists or form. Thus, even though a person who operates a singing practice room is equipped with non-permanent recording facilities and operates a business by recording his or her singing on the compact disc or recorded tape, or by using an indication of "recording room instead of singing" in his or her trade name, and completes his or her business registration as a "recording room service", if the actual contents of the business are equipped with facilities such as video or non-video playing apparatus so that he or she can sing in compliance with the anti-state without any musical owner, and thus, a person who operates a singing practice room business falls under the category of "sing room business" under Article 2 subparagraph 6 of the Act and Article 2 subparagraph 5 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, who is subject to the regulation under Article 3 of the Act (see, 96.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below recognized that the defendant's practice room operated by the defendant has a video-competing device which enables the singing without any reflectr and added a recording facility in order to avoid regulation under Acts and subordinate statutes, and held that even if the above facility is operated without any report as long as it falls under a singing practice room, the defendant violated Article 3 subparagraph 5 of the Act and Article 5 subparagraph 6 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act by allowing four persons under the age of 18 to enter the above singing practice room, although the defendant complied with the rules of law at around 16:40 on May 17, 1997. In light of the records and the above legal principles, the court below's fact-finding and judgment are acceptable, and there is no error of law by mistake of facts or by mistake of facts due to a violation of the rules of evidence or by the Constitution as to the freedom of occupation selection, etc.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Yong-hun (Presiding Justice)