A. The Defendant had no intention to allow juveniles to enter entertainment taverns and sell alcoholic beverages to juveniles, and there was no intention to sell alcoholic beverages to F and G because he did not receive an alcoholic beverage after entering F and G. It did not sell alcoholic beverages to F and G.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one million won of a fine and the order of provisional payment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. (1) In light of the legislative purport of the Juvenile Protection Act regarding erroneous determination of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the employer of a business establishment prohibited from accessing juveniles has a very strict responsibility for not allowing the employer to access the business establishment for the protection of juveniles. Thus, the employer of a business establishment prohibited from accessing juveniles has to verify the age of the juvenile based on resident registration certificates or evidence with public probative value of age to the extent that it is objectively difficult to doubt the applicant as the juvenile, barring any special circumstance, for the employer of the business establishment prohibited from accessing the business establishment, based on the victim’s identity certificate or other similar evidence (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 93Do2914, Jan. 14, 1994; 2002Do2425, Jun. 28, 2002; 2002Do2425, etc.). If the employer fails to take any measures to confirm age in violation of such duty to verify age and fails to take any measures to determine credibility or credibility of the witness’s testimony, etc.