The judgment of the first instance is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 2,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant of misunderstanding of facts did not see to customers any other words, and had customers bring in alcohol and controlled the police.

At the time of the occurrence of the instant case, the Defendant did not appear in a singing room, and the Defendant’s Dong G prepared a written confirmation according to the police officer.

B. The first instance sentencing of the Defendant on the grounds of unfair sentencing (2 million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Before determining the grounds for appeal ex officio, the prosecutor examined the facts charged in the instant case as stated in the judgment of the court of first instance, and the prosecutor maintained the facts charged in the instant case as the primary facts charged, and applied for the amendment of an indictment to add the facts charged as stated in the facts charged in the preliminary facts charged, “Articles 35, 34(3)2, and 22(1)3 of the Music Industry Promotion Act” to the applicable provisions of Acts in the preliminary charges, and the subject of the judgment is changed by this court’s permission. Thus, the judgment of the court of first instance cannot be maintained any more.

However, despite the above reasons for ex officio destruction, the defendant's argument about mistake of facts is still subject to the judgment of this court, and this is examined below.

B. In full view of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the first instance court on the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts, the fact that the Defendant operated a Danoo room on the first floor of Gangnam-gu Seoul, Seoul, and that G employed by the Defendant sold two customers who found the instant singing around March 29, 2014, to two customers who had found the instant singing around 01:30.

Therefore, we cannot accept the assertion of mistake of facts that G did not sell alcoholic beverages employed by the defendant or the defendant.

3. If so, the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts is without merit, but the judgment of the court of first instance is without merit, and the defendant's argument of unreasonable sentencing is judged.