The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

1. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is the person who operates an Ansan-si member B and C’s “C” package 1st underground floor in Ansan-si.

No general restaurant business operator shall be equipped with sound and rebuttal facilities and allow customers to sing.

Nevertheless, from February 2, 2015 to 23:00 on the same day, the Defendant violated the business operator’s code of practice by allowing two male grandchildren in name who found their place within the said Drata within the said Drata.

2. As to the facts charged in this case, the Defendant asserts that, at the time of the instant case, the Defendant did not have singing using sound and reflect facilities for business purposes, but had been engaged in the construction of the soundproofing Facilities at the time, and that there was only a fact of singing with the writers to conduct a construction test of soundproofing facilities, and that there was no violation of the business operator’s code of practice.

Comprehensively taking account of the images of the on-site patrolr, the statement of the police interrogation protocol against the defendant, investigation report (to hear the statement of the police officer D at the on-site crossing police officer), internal investigation (Ephone investigation), internal investigation (to submit a suspect A soundproofle board purchase receipt), and each statement of the internal investigation report (to be submitted), etc., the fact that E, the defendant's seat at the time of the instant case, as the defendant changed, was a construction of soundproofs and soundproofs at the time of the instant case, the defendant, E, and the defendant's seat F, etc. at the time of completion of construction of the construction, and was singing using sound and anti-state facilities installed in LBC car, and at the time of the instant case, the defendant was allowed to allow the general customer to use sound and anti-state facilities. At the time of the instant case, the defendant did not engage in the business of LBC, and at the time of this case, the defendant was allowed to use sound and anti-state facilities.