Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,000,000.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is a person who operates the "C" on the first floor of Busan Youngdo-gu B and the underground.

No karaoke machine business operator shall sell or provide any alcoholic beverage.

Nevertheless, around 20:40 on May 3, 2018, the Defendant sold three cans to three customers in the above singing practice room.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of witness D, E, and F;

1. Field control photographs;

1. Application of the CD-related Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Article 34 (3) 2 of the Music Industry Promotion Act and Articles 22 (1) 3 and 22 (1) 3 of the same Act concerning criminal facts and the selection of fines;

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

1. Determination as to the assertion by the defendant and his/her defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The crime in the judgment of the gist of the assertion is caused by the police officer's illegal naval investigation.

Therefore, the indictment of this case constitutes a case where the procedure violates the provisions of law and becomes null and void.

2. Determination

A. A. A vessel investigation that induces a person who does not have the original intent of the relevant legal doctrine to commit a crime by means of an investigative agency’s deception, attack, etc., thereby inducing the criminal intent cannot be exempted from the illegality of the criminal investigation. The prosecution based on such a vessel investigation constitutes a case where the procedure is null and void in violation of the provisions of the law.

However, if a person who has an intention to commit a crime is simply provided with an opportunity to commit a crime, it cannot be concluded that it is an illegal naval investigation.

(1) In light of the aforementioned legal principles, the lower court’s judgment on the ground that it constitutes an illegal undercover operation ought to be determined by comprehensively taking account of the type and nature of the relevant crime, the status and role of the inducer, the background and method of inducing the inducer, the response of the inducer, the history and method of inducing the inducer’s punishment, and the illegality of the inducer’s act itself, etc.

B. (See, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Do2339, Jul. 12, 2007).

Judgment

this Court.