The sentence of sentence against the defendant shall be suspended.

Punishment of the crime

The defendant from March 2007 to the person who operates a mutually agreed resting restaurant business in the name of "A" on the first floor of the D department store underground located in G from March 2007, and the person who intends to operate a resting restaurant business shall report to the competent authority under the conditions as prescribed by Presidential Decree.

Nevertheless, from around that time to March 13, 2014, the Defendant, even though a joint kitchen (area of approximately 17.7 square meters) was installed in the above restaurant, operated resting business without reporting it to the competent authorities.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Detection photographs;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes for investigation reporting;

1. Relevant laws concerning criminal facts, subparagraph 1 of Article 97 of the Food Sanitation Act, Article 37 (4) of the same Act, and selection of fines;

1. Penalty of one million won to be suspended;

1. Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act (amount converted per day: 100,000 won);

1. Article 59(1) of the Criminal Act (see, e.g., Article 59(1) of the suspended sentence) provides that a case in which a punishment is not imposed pursuant to Article 16 of the Criminal Act regarding the assertion of legal errors by the defendant and his/her defense counsel is not a simple case of law, but a simple case of law is not a case of the site of law, but a mistake is recognized that an act which constitutes a crime but does not constitute an act permitted by law in his

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 91Do1566, Oct. 11, 1991; 2010Do15260, Oct. 13, 201). There is no evidence to acknowledge that the Defendant asked relevant public officials, etc. about whether the above joint forum is subject to reporting, and the circumstance that the Defendant was unaware of whether it is subject to reporting is merely the site of a law, and in particular, it is not a case where the Defendant was aware of the fact that it is not a crime that is permitted by the law, but a mistake in law.