logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 공주지원 2013.08.09 2013고정42
음악산업진흥에관한법률위반
Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 2,000,000.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 50,000 won.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is a person who operates a Cheongyang-gun Co., Ltd.

On December 22, 2012, the Defendant: (a) around 21:05, provided that a karaoke machine business operator shall not employ a entertainment loan; and (b) he/she shall not sell or provide alcoholic beverages; (c) on December 22, 2012, the Defendant shall pay 20,000 won per hour to the above singing practice room (for example, E); and (d) provided a entertainment loan by introducing the customer F to the customer with dancing and singing together; and (e) sold five cansings.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of witness G;

1. A written statement;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes concerning the DVD (video recording data);

1. Relevant legal provisions concerning facts constituting an offense, and Articles 34 (3) 2, 22 (1) 3 (the point of sales of alcoholic beverages), 34 (2), and 22 (1) 4 (the point of brokerage of loan) of the Music Industry Promotion Act, and selection of fines for negligence;

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

1. Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. The Defendant and his/her defense counsel on the assertion of the Defendant and his/her defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act asserts that, on December 21, 2012, the Defendant and his/her defense counsel did not violate the code of practice as the operator of the “Dking practice room” but violated the rules of practice as the operator of the “H”.

However, according to the records of this case, the defendant submitted a report on the closure of a singing practice room to the Cheongyang-gun Office on December 24, 2012, and accepted the same date. Thus, the above assertion by the defendant and the defense counsel is not accepted.

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.

arrow