beta
Text
1. Defendant A shall be punished by a fine of three million won, and Defendant B shall be punished by a fine of one million won.
2. Defendants each of the above facts.
Reasons
Punishment of the crime
1. Defendant A is a person who operates resting restaurants in one’s name, “Ddaine” on the C and 1st floor of the Masan-si.
No food service business operator shall encourage or impliedly encourage any employee of his/her food service business establishment to receive money and valuables in return for time outside of his/her place of business.
Nevertheless, on November 28, 2013, December 1, 2013, 2013, December 7, 2013, 2013, and December 7, 2013, and December 12, 2013, the Defendant violated the obligation of food service business operators to comply with the instant business term, such as encouraging two employees of the DDaDaccccccccing to send customers E and hours to customers E and receiving KRW 30,000 per hour from a day outside the place of business, and impliedly allowing them to receive KRW 30,00 per hour.
2. Defendant B
(a) No employee of a food service business establishment that violates the Food Sanitation Act shall receive any money or valuables in return for any time outside of his/her place of business;
Nevertheless, on November 28, 2013, when the Defendant worked as an employee in the Divers as described in the preceding paragraph, the Defendant sent customers E and hours to customers and received KRW 30,000 per hour on December 1, 2013, December 1, 2013, December 7, 2013, and December 12, 2013.
B. On December 1, 2013, the Defendant received 500,000 won (including 1.50,000 won for hours) from E from GMoel located in F at the time of debate and engaged in sexual intercourse once. 2) On December 7, 2013, the Defendant received 500,000 won (including 1.50,000 won for hours) from E from GMoel located in F at the time of debate and engaged in sexual intercourse once.
3) On December 12, 2013, the Defendant: (a) 400,000 won from E from E in the I located in He in E in E in Seosan-si on December 12, 2013; and (b) engaged in sexual intercourse once.
Summary of Evidence
1. Defendants’ respective legal statements
1. Entry of the suspect interrogation protocol of the prosecution E in the protocol;
1. Application of the law to the statement statement made by the police of J
1. Article relevant to the facts constituting an offense and the selection of punishment;
A. Defendant A: Article 97 Subparag. 6 and Article 44(1) of the Food Sanitation Act (Selection of Fines).