Defendant shall be punished by a fine of two million won.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant is a person who operates a singing practice hall in the name of “Csing practice hall” on the Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government and underground floors.

No sing practice room business operator shall arrange employment of any entertainment loan.

Nevertheless, on September 15, 2015, the Defendant: (a) received a demand from his non-name customers to get a member of the above singing practice place on September 23:00; and (b) received a demand from his non-name customers; and (c) made D, who had been a member of the above customers, to arrange for a loan by allowing them to go a part of the time of the above customers, thereby violating the obligation of the singing practice hall operator.

Summary of Evidence

1. Part concerning the statement made D in the protocol concerning the interrogation of the suspect against the defendant

1. A protocol concerning the examination of suspects of D;

1. Written statements of D;

1. Voluntary accompanying report;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a registration certificate for singing practice place business, reply to a request for provision of communication confirmation data, request for provision of communication confirmation data (execution protocol), investigation report (related to the phone number of news reporting company of the suspect D), investigation report ( analysis of the suspect A's cell phone number and reverse transmission details), investigation report (information on the phone number of the suspect A)

1. Article 34 (2) and Article 22 (1) 4 (Selection of Punishment) of the Act on the Promotion of Music Industry and the Selection of Punishment for Criminal Facts;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. Although the Defendant alleged that there was no arrangement for a loan to the Defendant’s argument regarding the claim of the Defendant under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, the Defendant’s statement made to the investigation agency of D, who was the contactee, is reliable in light of the background, content, consistency, and physical strength of the statement, and thus, the Defendant’s above assertion by the contactee is rejected.