The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of legal principles and factual errors (1) The Defendant merely provides the head of the physical training hall operated by himself with bathing facilities free of charge so that he can carry out his body after a physical exercise. In light of the legislative purport of the Public Health Control Act, the legislative purport of Article 2(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Public Health Control Act, the character as an “equitable provision” that excludes some facilities from the public bath business, and the size and equipment of the bathing facilities of this case, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant carried out the “public bath business with the same act as the facts charged.”

(2) The Defendant had no intention to engage in a bath business subject to the Public Health Control Act.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (one million won in penalty) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In light of the following circumstances revealed through evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, it is sufficiently recognized that the Defendant was running a “public bath business” under Article 2(1)3 of the Public Health Control Act.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's argument cannot be accepted.

(1) A person who allows his/her members to use bathing facilities only.

Even if the entrance and withdrawal as a member of the physical training center are free, users of bathing facilities are not many and unspecified.

In addition, among the service fees that the defendant received from members of the physical training center, it includes the remuneration for the use of bathing facilities as a matter of course.

must be viewed.

(2) The purpose of the Public Health Control Act is to contribute to the improvement of national health by providing for matters concerning sanitary management, etc. of business used by the public.