Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,000,000.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant is a person who is engaged in general restaurant business under the trade name of “C” in the former North Korea-gun B.

Any person who intends to operate a general restaurant business shall report to the Minister of Food and Drug Safety, a Metropolitan Autonomous City Mayor, a branch office of a Special Self-Governing City, or the head of a Si/Gun/Gu, as prescribed by Presidential Decree.

Nevertheless, from June 2015 to July 10, 2016, the Defendant did not report to the competent authority at the above restaurant, and operated a general restaurant with food and drinks, such as 15 table table, gas table, cooling house, and kitchen, and with the kitchen facilities of about 30 square meters, and prepared and sold food and drinks, such as white houses, to customers.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. A statement of the detection;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes governing violation photographs;

1. Article 97 of the relevant Act on criminal facts and subparagraph 1 of Article 97 of the Food Sanitation Act, and Article 37 (4) of the same Act on the selective punishment (Selection of a punishment);

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

1. The reasons for sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act for sentencing of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act are the circumstances favorable to the defendant.

However, the defendant did not report to the competent authorities and operated a general restaurant business for more than one year, and the defendant was mainly engaged in funeral services in the summer season according to the location of the restaurant of this case or the seasonal demand, and the remaining season did not actually engage in funeral services.

Even if there are few periods of time, even if the defendant makes a statement, it is difficult to view that the amount of fine issued by the summary order is excessive, considering the fact that the restaurant facility of this case remains until now and the defendant did not report it to the competent authorities (which seems to be related to the location of the restaurant of this case).

Other provisions of Article 51 of the Criminal Act.