All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A1 did not know well the Defendant B, and did not commit an act of employing B as a substitute or drawing up customers. 2) The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (hereinafter “fine 1,000,000”) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B (1) Defendant B) 1 did not commit an entertainment act by a Japanese tourist who is merely a mistake of facts in finding a singing, and thus did not act as an entertainment drinking house in this case. (2) The lower court’s sentence of unfair sentencing (hereinafter “fine 1,00,000”) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The following facts are acknowledged based on the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below and the court of first instance on the Defendants’ assertion of mistake of facts. In other words, the Defendant B, around March 19, 2010, i.e., the Defendant B, at around 22:35, 2010, had access to the instant entertainment tavern operated by the said Japanese tourists, and had access to the said Japanese tourists and drink them in his hand, and had them drinked in his hand (the trial record is 56,59 pages); ② Defendant B, upon considering the aforementioned Japanese tourists, took the phone of the instant entertainment tavern in the instant case (the instant entertainment tavern) and took them back to the instant entertainment tavern operated by the Defendant A (the trial record is 56,59 pages);

In this case, it means whether there is room room for studio, and that it means that the above Japanese tourists, who directly go to the entertainment drinking house in this case, are well aware of the president, and the fact that it was controlled by the police followed by the following while guiding them to the studio at the studio (10 pages of the trial record) (3) Defendant B did not control and 5 minutes, and Defendant A came to the entertainment drinking house in this case and was viewed as the owner of his business (57 pages of the trial record), and ④ Defendant A responded to the purport that the enforcement officer at the time point point out Defendant B's visiting the entertainment drinking house in this case and asked Defendant A to be punished for his business as the owner.