Where a defendant fails to pay a fine, one hundred thousand won shall be the day.

No person shall sell, lend, distribute, or provide free of charge drugs and articles harmful to juveniles, such as alcoholic beverages, to juveniles.

Nevertheless, around 19:00 on September 3, 2016, the Defendant sold alcoholic beverages, such as “C” restaurant operated by the Defendant located in Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, D (18 years of age) and five juveniles, without verifying the identity card of the juvenile, and 21,500 won in total, to them.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of witness D;

1. Examination protocol of the accused by prosecution;

1. A criminal investigation report (a copy of the record referred to in 2017No279) and a copy of the record referred to in attached Table 2017No279;

1. Investigation report (Attachment to the E Decision);

1. In an investigation report (report attached to a written statement of a suspect), the defendant's defense counsel asserts that the defendant was an adult and sold alcoholic beverages without recognizing that the defendant was a juvenile. In light of the legislative purport of the Juvenile Protection Act, the defendant did not intend to commit a violation of the Juvenile Protection Act. In light of the legislative purport of the Juvenile Protection Act, the defendant's defense counsel must check the age of the juvenile on the basis of evidence with public probative value of the age as to the person with access to the age group likely to be a juvenile, unless there are any circumstances that make it difficult to doubt that the person was a juvenile, as the owner of the business or the owner of the business who sells harmful to juveniles, should objectively consider that the person was a juvenile, and barring any special circumstances, he/she should check the age of the juvenile on the basis of the resident registration certificate or other evidence with respect to the person with access to the age group with a public value of the age equivalent thereto (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Do2425, Jun. 28, 2002).