logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2013.09.03 2012고정6921
식품위생법위반
Text

Acquittal of the accused shall be acquitted.

Reasons

1. The summary of the facts charged is the person who reported general restaurant business to the head of Gangnam-gu and operates D’s main points on Seoul, Gangnam-gu and the first underground floor from February 2012.

From the end of August 2012 to October 22:40, 2012, the Defendant, without reporting on the business of dynasing bar, was equipped with 4 tables, 2 automatic reflectrs devices, 2 video devices for captioning, 6 microphones, drums, and reflectors, and allowed customers to sing and singing, and did not comply with the rules to be observed by business operators, by carrying on the dynas business of cooking and selling alcoholic beverages and alcoholic beverages.

2. Determination

A. According to the records of this case, the Defendant: (a) was in Seoul Central District Court Decision 2012 High Court Decision 201Da30311; (b) “The Defendant was a person operating a general restaurant with the trade name “D” on the Gangnam-gu Seoul and the first floor; (c) was issued a summary order on October 28, 2012 with a size of 141.90 square meters from October 25, 2012 to October 22:26, 2012 without obtaining permission from the competent authority; (d) equipped with a table 4, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 3, and 6, 6, etc., of the size of 141.9 square meters; and (e) was issued to customers with singing in line with video reflect; and (e) was issued with a summary order on November 28, 2012 as a violation of the Food Sanitation Act.”

B. However, the facts constituting a crime for which the above summary order became final and the facts charged of this case committed before the issuance date of such summary order are as follows: the Defendant engaged in dan business for a certain period of time without continuous reporting at the same place; and the basic facts are identical; thus, it constitutes a single comprehensive crime under the substantive law.

Therefore, the effect of the above final summary order also extends to the facts charged in this case conducted prior to the issuance of the summary order.

3...

arrow