The case holding that the accommodation business is permitted on the ground that the accommodation business is conducted independently in case where the guest room equipped with 40 guest rooms equipped with friendly facilities, such as high-class beds, in the tourist farm installed with approval for the project under the Act on the Special Measures for the Development of Agricultural and Fishing Villages and the accommodation business is provided to the guest room.

In establishing and operating a tourist farm on farmland with approval for the project for the development of the rural tourism and resort site under the Act on the Special Measures for the Development of Agricultural and Fishing Villages, it constitutes a case where a lodging business is operated independently by using accommodation facilities, in light of the structure of the above building, the size of guest rooms, the number of accommodation facilities, the level of accommodation charges, the operation of facilities, etc., which are 27 guest rooms, within the above farm source, and the equipment such as high-quality beds, shower rooms, small wave, tebs, air conditioners, telephone, and air conditioners, etc. inside the facility, and where it has been offered for accommodation of the above farm visitors, and continuously collected accommodation charges from the guest room in the name of the facility usage charges, if the above building is operated independently by using accommodation facilities, so long as permission for business has not been obtained from the competent administrative agency, it cannot be exempted from punishment under the Public Health Act.

Articles 42(1)1 and 4(1) of the Public Health Act, Article 30 of the Act on the Special Measures for Development of Agricultural and Fishing Villages

A. Supreme Court Decision 91Do1566 delivered on October 11, 1991 (Gong1991, 2761) 92Do1477 delivered on November 27, 1992 (Gong1993Sang, 312) 92Do1560 delivered on September 14, 1993 (Gong193Ha, 2838)

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney Park So-young

Seoul Criminal Court Decision 93No462 delivered on July 7, 1993

The appeal is dismissed.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

As legally determined by the court below, when the defendant installs and operates the tourist farm of this case on the farmland as stated in the ruling with the approval of the project for the development of the rural tourism and resort site under the Act on the Special Measures for the Development of Agricultural and Fishing Villages, he shall be equipped with a 27-dong guest rooms, which are a solid building in the above farm board, and a 40-dong guest rooms, which are the buildings with the above farm board, and he shall be equipped with a string equipment, such as high-quality shower, show, show, shock, cooling, telephone, and cold-conditioning facilities, and if the defendant has continuously received accommodation charges from 40,000 won to 150,000 won per day of the above farm room for the use of the facilities, and continuously received accommodation charges for the use of the above farm board, in light of the structure of the above building, the size of guest room, internal facilities, the level of accommodation charges, the operation of the facilities, etc., the defendant shall not be exempted from the punishment under the provisions of the Public Health Act.

On the other hand, as alleged by the defendant, the "Guidelines for Promotion of Development Project of Agricultural and Fisheries Resources for Tourism in Agricultural and Fishing Villages", which includes the administrative guidance of the Director of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry concerning the development project of the above tourist farm, was one of the incidental convenience facilities for visitors in the tourist farm, and the competent administrative authority has notified the head of Si/Gun of the answer that the above facility should be operated by receiving administrative guidance from the head of Si/Gun in accordance with the "Guidelines for Guidance and Management of Private Park Business Facilities", while it cannot be said that there was a justifiable reason to believe that the defendant might be lawfully allowed to operate the accommodation business by using the above prevention facilities without permission of the authority.

Therefore, we affirm the judgment of the court below to the same purport, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles such as theory of lawsuit. All arguments are without merit.

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

Justices Park Jong-chul (Presiding Justice)