logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 전주지방법원 2018.08.10 2018고단780
식품위생법위반
Text

Acquittal of the accused shall be acquitted.

Reasons

1. Defendant 1 is a person who operates a general restaurant in the name of “D” in the Yansan-gu Seoul Metropolitan City of Jeonju.

No general restaurant business operator shall be equipped with sound facilities and allow customers to dance.

Nevertheless, the Defendant, at around 00:50 on December 9, 2017, installed stage and sound equipment, special lighting, and large screen at the above-mentioned establishment, and installed the music in a significant frame. The Defendant employed the DJ and allowed customers to sing and dance, thereby failing to comply with the rules to be observed by the business operator.

2. On April 6, 2018, the Defendant received a summary order of KRW 1,00,000 (the date of issuance is April 3, 2018) from the Jeonju District Court for a violation of the Food Sanitation Act that violates the same code of practice as the facts charged, and the said order became final and conclusive on May 2, 2018.

However, Defendant’s business type is called so-called “a club” and its main purpose is to provide customers with special sound facilities and lighting facilities with a place where they can dance, and thus, the main purpose of the business itself is in violation of the matters to be observed under the Food Sanitation Act.

Therefore, a violation of the code of practice committed over several days by a defendant is continuously committed for a certain period following a single and continuous crime, and the damage benefit is also the same as that of a single and continuous crime, thus constituting an inclusive crime.

A business crime refers to a crime that is naturally anticipated to be repeated from the nature of the elements of collective crimes that constitute a group of crimes (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Do2390, Jul. 22, 2004). Article 97 Subparag. 6 and Article 44(1) of the Food Sanitation Act applicable to the facts charged of this case is Article 97 Subparag. 6 and Article 44(1) of the Food Sanitation Act, and it is difficult to view that the same act is naturally anticipated to be repeated only by the nature of the elements of the composition.

This is.

arrow