All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of the facts or misunderstanding of the legal principles, Defendant 1’s “D” operated by the Defendant, as reported to the competent authority, refers to the production of music records and music video works, and thus, it shall not be punished on the ground that the music practice place was operated as a singing practice place.

2) The sentence of the lower court (an amount of KRW 5 million) that is unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court (five million won in penalty) is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. The lower court acknowledged the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts based on the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court, namely, ① customer E stated “at the time of singing, 10,000 won per hour,” and, at the time of crackdown on September 1, 2015, became aware of D as a general singing practice place because it did not fully understand the concept of “the place of producing visual works”; ② Defendant is also a customer who does not video recording; ② the principal profit of business is deemed to arise from the cost of the service of singing in line with the anti-states, not from the production of music and music video works; ③ the addition of facilities capable of producing video products, but the use of the existing singing facilities is being carried out as they are. In full view of the following circumstances, D’s business operation constitutes a service of singing in line with the anti-states without the musical performer. However, it is merely an incidental imposition of video facilities to avoid regulation under the statutes, and thus constitutes a singing practice business.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and the defendant's assertion of mistake is without merit.

3. The Defendant and the Prosecutor attempted to avoid crackdowns while selling alcohol using the letter "video production business" while operating singing rooms in the same facility as to the determination of unfair sentencing of the Defendant and the Prosecutor, and the Defendant were the same as the same crime.