The case holding that the actual business type constitutes a singing practice room which is an amusement business affecting the public morals, even if the trade name of a recording room was used, in case where the person received admission fees or facility usage fees with a singing-sing machine, and

The case holding that the actual business type constitutes a singing practice room which is an amusement business affecting the public morals, even if the trade name of a recording room was used, in case where the person received admission fees or facility usage fees with a singing-sing machine.

Article 2 subparag. 6, Article 5(1), and Article 11 of the Act on the Regulation of Amusement Businesses Affecting Public Morals, Article 2 subparag. 5 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Regulation of Amusement Businesses Affecting Public Morals

[Plaintiff-Appellee] 96Ma229 decided Apr. 19, 1996 (Gong1996Sang, 1541)

Defendant

Defendant

Changwon District Court Decision 97No1626 delivered on November 5, 1997

The appeal is dismissed.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below found that the defendant, by taking account of the evidence adopted by the court of first instance, installed 13,00 won per hour in 7 types of musical instruments, installed in the audio-visual room business and sent singing from customers, and, if the customer so desires, recorded in the audio-visual tape. Article 2 subparagraph 6 of the Act on the Regulation of Amusement Businesses Affecting Public Morals and Article 2 subparagraph 5 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provide that the business of receiving admission fees or facility usage fees shall be a singing practice room which is an amusement business which is an amusement business with facilities such as video or non-video playing devices, and therefore, the defendant's act of receiving admission fees or facility usage fees of 13,00 won per hour and has been committed by the defendant to the audio-visual room business, and the defendant's act of doing business is not erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as stated in Article 2 subparagraph 9 of the Act and Article 2 subparagraph 9 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, regardless of its trade name.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Jong-sik (Presiding Justice)