The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant’s business of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles is not a lodging business with the main purpose of lodging as a new type of free business, and even if it falls under the lodging business, the prosecutor was convicted of violating the Game Industry Promotion Act by deeming that it was not a lodging business establishment at the time of crackdown around 2009, and thus, the Defendant’s act constitutes a mistake that it did not constitute a crime under the law and constitutes a case where there is a justifiable reason for mistake.

B. The lower court’s sentence of an unreasonable sentencing (5 million won by fine) against the Defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Article 1 of the Public Health Control Act provides that “The purpose of this Act is to improve the level of hygiene by prescribing matters concerning the sanitary management, etc. of businesses and facilities used by the public, thereby contributing to the improvement of health of the people.”

In addition, according to Article 2 of the Public Health Control Act, the term "public health business" means the business of providing sanitary management services to many people, such as accommodation business, public bath business, barber and hairdresser business, laundry business, and laundry service business, and the term " lodging business" means the business of providing such services as facilities and equipment so that customers can sleep and stay.

Defendant’s “D” business refers to “D” under Article 2(1)2 of the Public Health Control Act, and the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, i.e., (i) the building with the Defendant’s business place is registered in the building ledger as a lodging facility; (ii) the building consisting of a corridor that leads to a camera, a guest room, and a guest room; and (iii) the building has a structure and form suitable for the lodging facility; and (iv) the Defendant registered the business of “D” with the Sungnam Do Office, and (iii) the Defendant indicated his business attitude as “or accommodation”.