logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대법원 2006. 2. 24. 선고 2005도9114 판결
[식품위생법위반][미간행]
Main Issues

In a case where a business owner permits a customer to take a so-called "sket" and pay the sket expenses in a singing practice room, whether it constitutes a case where a person has an entertainment worker as prescribed by the former Enforcement Decree of the Food Sanitation Act (affirmative)

[Reference Provisions]

Articles 21(2) and 77 subparag. 3 of the Food Sanitation Act, Article 7 subparag. 8(d) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Food Sanitation Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 18978 of Jul. 27, 2005)

Escopics

Defendant

upper and high-ranking persons

Defendant

Judgment of the lower court

Jeonju District Court Decision 2005No788 Decided November 11, 2005

Text

The appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

Article 7 subparagraph 8 (d) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Food Sanitation Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 18978 of July 27, 2005) provides that "business of cooking and selling alcoholic beverages by drinking" refers to a business of cooking and selling alcoholic beverages, who is allowed to employ entertainment workers or install entertainment facilities, and customers are allowed to sing or dance." Here, "persons engaged in entertainment" includes cases where a woman pays an hourly remuneration to a woman as a part-time employee, and has a woman drink with drinking, singing, or dance to encourage customers' entertainment by drinking, singing, or dancing. Meanwhile, in cases where a so-called "telet" waiting for a specific multi-face is provided with an hourly remuneration for a singing room and has a customer dance together with the customer, and in cases where an employee directly pays an "telet" to a customer, even if he/she directly pays an entertainment ticket, it constitutes a case where the legislative person is aware of such circumstances in light of the legislative purport of the above statute.

In light of the above legal principles, the court below's decision that found the defendant guilty is justified, and there is no violation of law such as misconception of facts against the rules of evidence.

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

Justices Lee Hong-hoon (Presiding Justice)

arrow