The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the prosecutor’s grounds for appeal reveals that general restaurants (hereinafter “instant restaurant”) in the name of “C” operated by himself/herself do not coincide with the reported place of business, or there was dolusent intent to do so. Even if not, the Defendant was aware on June 7, 201 that his/her place of business was changed after his/her initial business was reported when the Defendant was given an opportunity to present his/her opinion on the disposition of closure of the place of business at the Busan-gu Office, Busan-gu Office on the grounds that the Defendant was aware of the change of the place of business after his/her initial business was reported, and thus, the crime

Nevertheless, the court below judged that the defendant did not have an intention to report and sentenced not guilty, and there is an error of misconception of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles.

2. The judgment fee, Articles 37(4) and 97 of the Food Sanitation Act, and Articles 25(1)8 and 26 subparag. 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provide that when a person engaged in an ordinary restaurant business changes his place of business, he shall report this fact to the competent authority, and the offender shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than three years or by a fine not exceeding thirty million won. Thus, the above punishment subject to the above provision should be interpreted as a person who changes the place of business without reporting the change to the competent authority.

Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court, the Defendant acquired a general restaurant operated by F in the name of G from F on September 6, 2010, and changed the trade name thereof from F to C, and completed the report of succession to the status of business operator on October 4, 2010 and operated the said restaurant to the head of Busan District Office on October 4, 2010, and it can be recognized that the Defendant had known the location of the said restaurant already reported prior to the acquisition of the said restaurant, and the location of the instant restaurant after the Defendant acquired the instant restaurant.