The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Summary of Reasons for appeal

A. Fact misunderstanding: The Defendant only engaged in the production of video works with the trade name “D” in a school environment sanitation and cleanup zone.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below that recognized the establishment of a crime of violation of the School Health Act on the ground that the defendant operated the above singing practice place business with the above trade name was erroneous and adversely affected the conclusion

B. misunderstanding of legal principles: The Defendant was convicted on June 18, 2015 on the charge of violation of the Music Industry Promotion Act in the support for the development of the source of water sources and sources, which became final and conclusive. The facts constituting the above final and conclusive judgment are the facts charged in the instant case.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which did not dismiss the defendant is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to res judicata, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

The judgment of the lower court on the assertion of facts is that “I” is written in D’s glass letter (the above 13th right photograph of the investigation record). However, according to the circumstances revealed following the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, the Defendant can sufficiently recognize the fact that the Defendant engaged in the singing practice, and cannot be viewed differently by using the above glass letter. Thus, the Defendant’s assertion of fact-finding is without merit.

① A signboard installed by the Defendant on the outer wall of a building includes a trade name “D”, and among which, it is easy to recognize that the size of letters “marine” portion is considerably smaller than the size of the remainder as D (a photograph above the left side of the 13th page of the investigation record). ② There is a device installed in D capable of singing and a singing channel is also in place (an investigation record No. 14 pages). ③ The Defendant received customers who have talked in D (an investigation record No. 10, 11th page of the investigation record). According to the record of determination of the misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the Defendant’s trade name, “D” from the support of sign of water sources on June 18, 2015, without registering it with the competent authority from around October 2014 to the competent authorities.