logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산지방법원 동부지원 2015.11.26 2015고정118
음악산업진흥에관한법률위반
Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 300,000.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is an employee of Busan-gun, Busan-gun, and 5th D Singing practice room.

No karaoke machine business operator shall sell or provide any alcoholic beverage.

Nevertheless, at around 22:30 on October 4, 2014, the Defendant sold 1,700c beer and 2 c beer and 3 beer, etc. to FI will be a customer in the instant singing practice room.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement made by the defendant in this Court;

1. A witness G makes a partial statement in this Court;

1. Statement prepared by the F;

1. Statement of investigation report prepared by the police;

1. To describe a copy of account statement (Evidence No. 11 pages);

1. The defendant and his defense counsel's assertion of each video and defense counsel in field photographs (No. 12 pages of evidence records) asserts that since the defendant's defendant's defense counsel is not an employee of a singing practice room but an employee of the same E main shop on the same floor, it does not constitute "singing practice room business operator"

According to the statements made by the witness G in this court and the documents submitted by the defendant, the fact that the defendant is an employee of the above heading in the labor contract can be recognized.

However, in light of the following circumstances that can be recognized by the evidence duly adopted by this court, i.e., (i) G operates the above singing practice room as if it were operated; (ii) it is difficult to regard the above singing practice room as a business establishment unrelated to the above singing practice room as a part of the space of the said singing practice room; and (iii) it appears that G’s children were managing the said singing practice room at the time of the instant case; (iv) the Defendant would have sold alcoholic beverages to its customers without receiving any restriction; and (iii) the Defendant, in a telephone conversation with the prosecution investigator, provided that “the said singing practice room had sold alcoholic beverages to its customers several times prior to the instant case,” the Defendant is an actual assistant of the said singing practice room, and is an employee under Article 35 of the Music Industry Promotion Act.”

arrow