The defendant shall be innocent.

1. The Defendant is a general manager of the “E” restaurant on the sixth floor of the D department store in Suwon-si, the Defendant is a general manager of the D department store in C.

From October 2013 to October 2013, the Defendant did not file a report on the change of the area of the place of business with the competent authority, even though he/she used the air conditioners used in restaurants, food materials, etc. in the area of about three square meters in the cooperation room on the sixth floor of the above department stores, and used them as the place where food materials, etc. are stored.

2. Article 37 (4) of the Food Sanitation Act provides that "a person who intends to engage in a business prescribed by Presidential Decree among the businesses referred to in the subparagraphs of Article 36 (1) shall report to the Minister of Food and Drug Safety, the Governor of a Special Self-Governing Province, or the head of a Si/Gun/Gu by type of business or place of business, as prescribed by Presidential Decree. The same shall apply where any material fact prescribed by Presidential Decree is changed or discontinued, among the reported matters, is changed or discontinued." Article 26 of

Ultimately, the obligation to report the area of a place of business under the above Act is imposed on “a person who intends to engage in a business prescribed by Presidential Decree among the businesses referred to in the subparagraphs of Article 36(1) of the Food Sanitation Act” and a crime of violating the above obligation to report constitutes an identification offender who can only commit an offense, and “a person who engages in a restaurant business” refers to a person who becomes the subject to whom the rights and obligations due to the restaurant business are attributed, and thus does not include employees

However, according to the evidence submitted by the prosecution, including the defendant and witness F's legal statement, the defendant is only an employee employed by the above restaurant business operator, and there is no evidence to acknowledge the fact that the defendant is a person engaged in the above restaurant business.

3. As such, the facts charged in this case are concluded.