The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal: (a) around February 23, 2012, the Defendant transferred I a business of Switzerland (hereinafter “D”) with the trade name “D” located on the first floor of Dongdaemun-gu Seoul, Dongdaemun-gu Seoul (hereinafter “instant Switzerland”); and (b) thereafter, the Defendant did not operate the instant Switzerland around October 23, 2012 in order to help operate the instant business or to receive the remainder of the premium.

Even if the Defendant was the actual owner of the instant Switzerland, he did not engage in the same business as indicated in the facts charged of the instant case, and did not intend to do so.

Nevertheless, the lower court convicted the Defendant of the instant facts charged by misunderstanding the facts.

2. The evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the following circumstances that can be recognized by the evidence, i.e., ① the Defendant’s opening date is a business operator on October 20, 2012, ② the Defendant’s opening date is composed of six rooms from which the inside of the instant Switzerland is not able to be seen, and ③ the Defendant operated the same place of business in the vicinity of the police station other than the instant Switzerland. The Defendant reported an interview around August 2012, and first employed the Defendant at the entertainment center, and was under the direction of the Defendant and I, from around September 2012 to December 2, 2012, G reported that the Defendant exceeded the Defendant’s body, including the Defendant’s kid’s kid’s kid’s kid’s kid’s kid’s kid’s kid’s kid’s kid’s kid’s kid’s kid’s kid’s wd’s w.

During the period of service, the defendant was the president, and the Pidio of this case.