The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendant only operated the Institute of Notification and did not run the Lodging business, and accordingly, Defendant’s businesses are not a lodging business subject to reporting under the Public Sanitary Control Act.

2. The purpose of the Public Health Control Act is to contribute to the improvement of health of citizens by providing for matters concerning sanitary management, etc. of business used by the public (Article 1). A person who intends to conduct a public sanitary business is required to have facilities and equipment prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Health and Welfare and to report to the competent authorities (Article 3(1)). The term “public sanitary business” refers to the business of providing sanitary management services to many people, such as accommodation, etc., and “ accommodation business” excludes cases prescribed by the Presidential Decree such as private houses located in agricultural and fishing villages (Article 2(1)1 and 2). In full view of the purpose of the above Act and the contents of the above provisions, insofar as continuous and repeated provision of services such as facilities and equipment which customers are able to sleep for profit-making purposes does not fall under the exclusion provisions prescribed by the law, the term “public sanitary business” refers to accommodation business under Article 2(1)2 of the same Act and Article 2(1)2 of the same Act shall be reported to the competent authorities” (see, e.g. 31, 2013).

According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, the defendant recruited foreign tourists through the Internet accommodation reservation site, including E, and continuously and repeatedly provide guest rooms, bedclothess, and sclouses, and sclouses, etc. to be 20,000 won or 16,000 won per day to them, and the defendant's business is operated.