logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원 2015.12.09 2015고정1666
음악산업진흥에관한법률위반
Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,500,000.

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

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant is a person who operates a singing practice room with a trade name called “Dnoman Bank” in Briju City.

1. No karaoke machine business operator shall sell or provide any alcoholic beverage;

Nevertheless, around 01:00 on June 5, 2015, the Defendant sold an amount equivalent to 14 illness of alcoholic beverages to E, who is the customer of the instant singing practice room, in the said singing practice room.

2. No karaoke machine business operator shall employ nor arrange a vaccination loan;

Nevertheless, at the above time and place, the Defendant got F to enter the said room and let F, who had come to do so, enter the said room, followed the said E work together with the said E work, and had F enter the room for about 40 minutes, and arranged for a entertainment loan by getting F, who had been engaged in singing while singing and singing in dancing.

Summary of Evidence

1. Each police statement concerning G and F;

1. E-certification;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on credit card table;

1. Article 34 (3) 2, Article 22 (1) 3 (a) of the Music Industry Promotion Act concerning facts constituting an offense, and Articles 34 (2) and 22 (1) 4 (a) of the Music Industry Promotion Act;

1. Each selective fine for punishment;

1. Of concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act;

1. The reason for sentencing under Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act is not only the sale of alcoholic beverages, but also the arrangement for entertainment loans. The Defendant denied the instant crime by face-to-face talking with the several people, or asserted that the instant crime does not conform to other evidence, and the amount of fine determined by the summary order cannot be deemed to be excessive in light of equity with similar cases.

arrow