Defendant shall be punished by a fine of 2.5 million won.

If the defendant does not pay a fine, one hundred thousand won shall be the day.

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is a person who operates a singing practice hall in the name of "Ding practice hall" in the underground space of the building located in Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan City.

1. In spite of the fact that an alcoholic beverage dealer was prohibited from selling or providing alcoholic beverages, the Defendant breached his/her obligations by selling or providing the cans to two persons, such as customers E, at around 20:50 on December 24, 2015.

2. In spite of the fact that the Defendant did not drink with the customer in a singing practice place, provide entertainment to the customer by singing or dancing, or arrange any other person to provide entertainment to the customer, the Defendant breached his duty to comply with the agreement by allowing two female women under the name of the contact provider to provide entertainment to the customer by drinking alcohol together with E, etc., upon receiving a demand for entertainment loan from the above E at the same time and place as the above paragraph 1, and at the same time and place, and upon receiving a demand from the above E (hereinafter referred to as “the contact loan”).

Summary of Evidence

Defendant’s partial statement (Recognition of Sales of Alcoholic Beverages) by witness E and F’s legal statement [the Defendant was unable to give a loan because of Churma’s clives,” and E and F’s false statement that they reported that they had music and drinking for three hours, and that they reported that they had a large cost of drinking and drinking for three hours.

However, in light of the fact that E/F divided into cards and cash transfers, and the total amount paid by witnesses, the witness makes a false statement in light of the fact that E/F submitted G phone numbers.

In addition, in light of the fact that the Defendant sent a short call to G several times between late nights and late nights (Evidence Nos. 54, 55 pages), the G’s statement to the effect that only the Defendant was an internal phone with the Defendant is difficult to believe.