logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 안산지원 2017.03.23 2014고정637
음악산업진흥에관한법률위반
Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 700,000.

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

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

The defendant operates ‘Dreing practice hall' and ‘E singing practice hall' on the 3rd floor of the building in Ansan-si, Seoul.

No person who operates a sing practice hall shall allow juveniles to access except for the hours for admitting juveniles (from 09:0 to 22:00).

Nevertheless, on January 16, 2014, the Defendant received total of KRW 5,000 per hour from 12 persons, such as F (G life and south) which is a juvenile, around 03:27, from 6 and 7, and violated the business operator’s code of practice.

Summary of Evidence

1. Legal statement of the witness H;

1. Recording of a witness F's statement in the third public trial records;

1. Each statement made by the witness I, J and K in the fourth public trial protocol;

1. Each police statement made to I and F;

1. Each statement of F, H and L;

1. On-site photographs (the defendant and his defense counsel do not deny that the evidence Nos. 1 through 3, in particular CCTV video (Evidence No. 2) was affixed and that the defendant had access to the juveniles at the time.

However, according to the evidence, in particular, consistent, consistent, F, I's investigation agency, and this court's statements, it can be acknowledged that the defendant had access to the juveniles as stated in the judgment of the court, and evidence Nos. 1 through 3 submitted by the defendant and defense counsel is proved by the evidence of the judgment, i.e., the time when the juveniles were sing and singing in the above singing practice room at the time of the crackdown remains 17 minutes, but the defendant cannot sing in the singing practice room unless the defendant entered in the camera, and 2) at the time of the control, the defendant shows the same part as the CCTV is confirmed, while the above part is repeated.

In light of the fact that the defendant, who attempted to go to the Kabter, extracted all CCTV while pushing the above H, and eventually, the above H did not confirm CCTV images on its job.

arrow