The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

All the costs of the original judgment and the trial shall be borne by the defendant.

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts) is as follows: (a) the Defendant engaged in the production of music records and music video works, which is not a singing practice room, at the instant place of business; and (b) reported the production of music records and music video works.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which pronounced guilty against the defendant is erroneous by misapprehending the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

(a) The person is engaged in the production of music records or music video works;

In determining the substance of a singing practice place, it should not be considered what type of business is reported, but the substance of the business, such as the type of business has a form similar to the singing practice place, and the main interest in the business is generated in the cost of providing any service, should be the basis.

B. The lower court acknowledged the following circumstances based on the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court: (a) the Defendant received 25,000 won in return for the provision of “one-hour, one-hour, one-way, and one-way beverage” to the customer who found the instant place of business on May 22, 2015; and (b) around May 28, 2015, the customer who found the instant place of business had received 26,000 won in return for the provision of “one-hour, six thousand won for singing, and two-way leaves” to the customer who was engaged in the instant place of business on May 28, 2015; (c) there is no reason to calculate the fee on a hourly basis; and (d) there is no reason to provide alcoholic beverages to the customer.

At around 20:49 on May 16, 2013, the Defendant provided alcoholic beverages to customers while running a singing practice room, and controlled that he provided a entertainment loan (see, e.g., 69 pages of investigation records). At around November 13, 2014, the co-offender C of the instant case had a record of regulating his non-registered singing practice room business at the instant place of business and at around 22:40 on February 25, 2015.