A defendant shall be punished by a fine of 500,000 won.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, the amount of KRW 100,000 shall be paid.

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant is a food entertainment business operator who operates a restaurant in the name of “D” in Jincheon-gun C.

A food entertainment business operator shall not receive money and valuables from a business operator or his/her employee of a food entertainment business place in return for temporary requirements while he/she is off his/her place of business, or shall not encourage or impliedly encourage such acts of his/her employees.

Nevertheless, on August 4, 2016, the Defendant impliedly sent time to 30,000 won and received 30,000 won per hour at the singing practice place on condition that the said multiple employees G receive 30,000 won per hour from H, which is the multiple customers.

Summary of Evidence

1. Each legal statement of G, I, and H in part;

1. Each police statement made to H and G;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to each statement;

1. Subparagraph 6 of Article 97 of the Food Sanitation Act and Article 44 (1) 8 of the same Act concerning facts constituting an offense, selection of fines;

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

1. Determination on the assertion of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. Around the time and time of the argument, D (hereinafter “D”) was on leave, and the Defendant was under the care of a hospital due to traffic accidents at the end of June, 2016, and the Defendant was under the care of the hospital due to traffic accidents, and was under the care of the child, etc., and was allowing I to operate the said multi-face services, such as paying public charges.

G Since the above multiple parties have met H individually during the period in which they did not run their business, it cannot be deemed as a so-called “tweet business.”

2. In light of the following facts, it is sufficiently recognized that the defendant, as stated in its holding, has been aware of the facts by comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly adopted and examined, after sending time off and receiving money from the multiple customers, the defendant's act of receiving money. Thus, the above argument is rejected.

(1) G shall be located in this Court as follows: