The defendant shall be innocent.

1. The summary of the facts charged is a person who operates a “D' main points” in Daejeon Dong-gu, Daejeon.

A food service business operator shall not engage in any entertainment which helps customers and attract them.

However, at around 22:30 on July 22, 2014, the Defendant, on the front side of the above main shop, to E, who is a person who has obtained the completion of the operation at the near main shop (the person who introduced the loss to a nearby main shop and received the money).

In order to conduct the main business, two persons, such as F, etc., who was drunk, for the main business, are sought to do so.

At the main point, I had a guest act to drink alcoholic beverages.

The defendant provided 20,00 won per each house purchased by the customer when he/she gets a customer to the customer.

As above, the Defendant operated food service business in collaboration with E by doing the act of soliciting customers.

2. The evidence that seems to correspond to the facts charged in the instant case lies in the police interrogation protocol, G preparation statement, and E preparation statement.

E, in this Court, he independently provided that he did not belong to the “D' store operated by the Defendant,” but independently provided that he was going to go to the “D' store” and other customers for the first time on the date indicated in the facts charged.

E did not have received a request from the Defendant for a guest act. The “D's main store” was the same as the main store located on the other floor of the building, and stated that G et al. did not inform the Defendant or the “D' employee of the Defendant or the “D' main store, etc., of the fact that G et al. did not request the consideration for the act of soliciting.

At the time, H, who was an employee of the “D' branch,” had been the same as the guest on the date and time indicated in the facts charged, E knew of the customer’s conduct, and E did not demand the consideration for the customer’s conduct, and made a statement consistent with E.

In light of E and H’s legal statement, the police interrogation protocol of E and G are prepared.