Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 2,500,000.

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

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant is a person who operates a singing practice room with the trade name of the Seo-gu Incheon building, Chyp to D, “Ek practice room.”

No karaoke machine business operator shall sell or provide any alcoholic beverage, and shall employ or arrange any entertainment service (no matter whether male or female) or engage in entertainment.

1. On February 8, 2019, the Defendant sold six cans to two customers, such as customers F, at the two rooms of the said “Eking practice room” (Eking practice room) around 22:55.

2. The Defendant: (a) received a demand from the above customer F, etc., at the date and time and place specified in paragraph (1); (b) received a demand from the above customer F, etc., and (c) received 30,000 won per hour, and arranged for the loan by having the customer G and H attend the meeting and drink and drink and talk with music.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Each police interrogation protocol of G and H:

1. A written statement;

1. Application of statutes on field photographs;

1. Relevant Article of the Act on the Promotion of Music Industry, Articles 34 (3) 2, 22 (1) 3 (the point of sales of alcoholic beverages), Articles 34 (2) and 22 (1) 4 (the point of brokerage of adjacent loans) of the Music Industry Promotion Act, and the selection of fines for negligence;

1. Of concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act (aggravating concurrent crimes with the penalty determined for the violation of the Music Industry Promotion Act due to arrangement of heavy concurrent crimes);

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

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act lies in recognizing and opposing the instant crime.

On the other hand, although the defendant was repeatedly punished for the same crime, the defendant was repeated.

The defendant alleged that the crime of this case was discovered by the power to systematically harm the above business site operated by the defendant, and that such circumstances should be considered, but the so-called "illegal equality" is stipulated in the Constitution.