The defendant shall be innocent.

1. The Defendant is a person who operates a dynasium with the trade name “C” from Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government B and branch.

No person shall drink alcoholic beverages with customers, provide entertainment services by singing or dancing at a place where food service business is operated for profit.

Nevertheless, around December 16, 2015, the defendant seems to have written indictment in writing, which is a guest who found the above business around 23:20 on December 16, 2015.

On the other hand, E and F, an employee, recommended entertainment by singing or dancing.

2. The facts constituting an offense charged in a criminal trial should be proved by the prosecutor, and the judge should be convicted with evidence having probative value, which leads to the conviction that the facts charged are true beyond a reasonable doubt. As such, in a case where the prosecutor’s proof does not reach the extent that it would lead to such conviction, it is inevitable to determine the defendant’s benefit even if there is a doubt that the defendant is guilty.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Do1151, Jul. 22, 2010). Evidence submitted by a prosecutor alone is insufficient to acknowledge the facts charged, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge the same.

Therefore, since the facts charged in this case constitute a case where there is no proof of crime, it is not guilty under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and it is not possible to confirm the intention of not guilty due to the defendant's failure to appear on the trial date, and thus, the summary of the decision shall not be published under