1. The defendant shall be punished by a fine not exceeding one million won;

2. Where the defendant fails to pay the above fine, one hundred thousand won.

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is running a general restaurant business under the trade name of "D" from the 1st floor of Heak-gu Seoul Metropolitan City, Young-gu.

A general restaurant business operator shall not have an entertainment entertainment entertainment service provider provide entertainment services or encourage or impliedly encourage employees to do such acts by employing entertainment service providers.

Nevertheless, on February 22, 2016, from around 21:30 to 23:55 on February 22, 2016, the Defendant violated the code of practice of food service providers by allowing entertainment service providers E employed at 65,000 won per day with three customers, such as F, and also with three customers.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant E with some legal witness;

1. Protocol concerning the interrogation of suspects of E by the prosecution;

1. Each protocol of suspect examination of the police against E or F;

1. Application of statutes on business registration certificates;

1. As to the assertion of the Defendant and his defense counsel concerning the relevant criminal facts and Articles 97 subparag. 6 and 44(1) of the Food Sanitation Act (excluding punishment), the Defendant and his defense counsel concerning the allegation of the Defendant and his defense counsel under Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act, and the Defendant and his defense counsel employed the main points of this case by employing E for the purpose of unfolding away from the day to the day of the Defendant with the relation of performing other duties, and the Defendant does not call that they drink in company with the customer or call that they drink in company with the customer.

Since the defendant paid attention, the defendant did not encourage or impliedly encourage entertainment entertainment.

The argument is asserted.

The following circumstances, which can be duly admitted and investigated by evidence, that is, the defendant, as the owner of the main point of this case, employs E and actually operates the main point of this case, and the defendant seems to have reached the settlement, E appears to have received more than 200,000 won a day after receiving 60,000 won per day, and E seems to have done a job for male customers to drink with the table table of the male customers, because E changed in the course of business.