1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The grounds for appeal by the plaintiff citing the judgment of the court of first instance are not significantly different from the allegations in the court of first instance, and the fact-finding and judgment of the court of first instance are justified even if the parties' claims are examined by adding the evidence submitted to the court of first instance to the

Therefore, the reasoning of the judgment of this court is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the dismissal of part of the grounds of the judgment of the court of first instance or supplementation of such judgment as stated in the following Paragraph 2. Thus, it shall be cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420

2. Subsequent to the second sentence “C” of Part II of the Contents of Cut or Supplement, the phrase “(D)” shall be added.

The term "examiner" shall be added subsequent to the second five conduct.

After the second 7-8 "Grounds for "the act" is added to "in accordance with the standards under Article 75 of the Food Sanitation Act and Article 89 of the Enforcement Rule of the Food Sanitation Act".

The second one shall be "Revocation" in the 8th parallel. It shall be written by inserting "A".

The third through fourth parallels 17 to 4 shall be done in the following manner:

Article 75(1)13 of the Food Sanitation Act, Article 89 [Attachment 23] of the Enforcement Rule of the Food Sanitation Act provides that a food service business operator shall make two-month business suspension in the event of the first violation, three-month business suspension in the event of the second violation, and three-month business suspension in the event of the second violation, and that the above criteria are not specifically consistent with the Constitution or laws, and that it is difficult to deem that the above criteria are significantly unfair. ② The Plaintiff was discovered that the Plaintiff provided alcoholic beverages to juveniles on August 21, 2016 and was subject to a penalty surcharge in lieu of business suspension.