All appeals filed by prosecutors and Defendant A shall be dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, even though Defendant B succeeded to the status of the proprietor of the instant entertainment tavern through the transfer of business from L and did not report the succession to the status pursuant to the Food Sanitation Act, the lower court acquitted the Defendant of this part of the facts charged. In so determining, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion

B. Defendant A (1) misunderstanding of facts) helps Defendant A to work for the instant entertainment tavern on a personal-friendly basis with Pyeongtaek B, but even though there was no fact that Defendant A had been employed by the said main office’s employee and attempted to serve as a customer, the lower court found Defendant A guilty of this part of the facts charged and erred by misapprehending the facts, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. 2) The sentence of KRW 3,000,000, which was sentenced by the lower court of unreasonable sentencing, is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Article 39 of the Food Sanitation Act provides that where a business operator transfers his/her business to another person, the transferee shall succeed to the status of the business operator, and the person who succeeds to the status of the business operator pursuant to Article 39(1) of the Food Sanitation Act provides that the person shall report such fact to the competent authority within one month, as prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry for Health, Welfare and Family Affairs. The issue of whether a business transfer exists shall be determined based on whether the transferee continues to engage in the same business activity as the transferor after he/she transferred functional property as the source of revenue organized systematically by the transferee, based on the fact that the transferee succeeds to the status of the business operator pursuant to the former Act and the effect of cancelling the business license, etc. for the transferor due to the transfer of the business (see Supreme Court Decision 2011Do6561, Jan. 12, 2012).