The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of the legal principle) is that the Defendant only operated a single type of lodging facility, and the Defendant did not operate a lodging facility. Therefore, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the Defendant’

2. Determination

A. The purpose of the Public Health Control Act (hereinafter “Act”) is to contribute to improving the health of citizens by providing for matters concerning sanitation management, etc. of businesses and facilities used by the public (Article 1 of the Act); and “public sanitary business” refers to the business of providing sanitary control services to many people, such as accommodation business, etc.; and “ accommodation business” refers to the business of providing such services as facilities and equipment so that customers can sleep and stay: Provided, That the cases prescribed by Presidential Decree, such as private houses located in agricultural and fishing villages, are excluded (Article 2(1)1 and 2 of the Act). ① Facilities excluded from the lodging business prescribed in the Enforcement Decree of the Public Health Control Act (Article 2(1)1 and 7 of the Act; ② Facilities installed in natural recreational forests pursuant to the Forestry Culture and Recreation Act; ③ Juvenile training under Article 10 subparag. 1 of the Juvenile Activity Promotion Act; and ③ Facilities providing such services as accommodation business for private use and tourism management prescribed in Article 4 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act (see Article 2(1)7)2 of the Act).

the accommodation is excluded from the above accommodation.