B. Whether an employee's crime of business caution under the joint penal provisions is established as a result of defects in qualification requirements for a crime of violating the same Act

(c) Whether an offense under the joint penal provisions of business caution occurs due to an illegal act committed by other employees;

(d) Whether the motive of the employee's illegal act affects the business owner's liability.

B. The punishment of a business owner under the joint penal provision is not dependent on the punishment of an employee who is a violation of the prohibition, but is punished independently due to the negligence in the appointment and supervision of his/her employee. Therefore, if a business owner is held liable for such negligence, even if an employee who is the violation of the prohibition is not qualified under the constituent elements, the establishment of the business owner’s law

C. As a joint penal provision for a violation of administrative laws, taking the responsibility of a business owner on the basis of negligence in the appointment and supervision of the business owner for employees, etc., refers to those engaged in the business under the supervision and control of the business owner directly or indirectly in the course of operating the business owner. Therefore, even if the business owner is not the one who is employed by himself/herself, and is paid by others as those who are employed by others, it shall be included above in the case of those who are subject to supervision and control indirectly through the employees of the business owner.

(d) If, in an objective external appearance, an act related to the business of the business owner is an act of the business owner, and if the employee commits an offence while performing the business of the business owner, the motive of the offence is merely an act for the benefit of the employee or a third party, and even if not an act for the business of the business owner, the business owner cannot be exempted from the responsibility

1. In contrast to Article 4(2) of the Minor Protection Act and Article 2(1)3 of the same Act that provides that no business operator shall allow minors to enter his/her place of business. In contrast to the provision that prohibits a seller of tobacco or alcoholic beverages from selling or distributing their tobacco or alcoholic beverages at the beginning of the year under Article 4(1) of the same Act, the term "business operator" is limited to the business owner corresponding to the seller under paragraph (1) of the same Article, and his/her employees are not obligated to prohibit the above provision, and thus, he/she cannot be held liable for the prohibited violation. Accordingly, the above provision and Article 7 of the same Act provide that no business owner's liability under the joint penal provisions premised on employees' responsibility shall be imposed on the corporation, an agent, an employee, or any other employee's violation, as well as a corporation or an individual's punishment on such corporation or individual, and thus, the above provision are not subject to the prohibition of an employee's independent punishment under this case's business owner's own negligence, not the business owner's agent or employee's negligence.

Although the court below acknowledged the criminal facts that Co-Defendant 1 had two minors aged 14 enter the above theater and found him guilty under Article 7 of the Minor Protection Act, despite the motion pictures prohibited from viewing by minors are shown in the theater, the court below is just and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the business operator under Article 4 (2) of the above Act. The argument is groundless.

2. As a joint penal provision for a violation of administrative regulations by employees, the liability of business owner is based on the negligence liability for the appointment and supervision of the business owner for the employees, etc., and the employees refer to those engaged in the business under the supervision and control of the business owner directly or indirectly in the course of the management of the business owner's business. Therefore, even if the business owner is not one who is employed by himself/herself, and is paid by others as those who are employed by others, it shall be included in the case of those who are subject to supervision and control indirectly through the business owner's

The court below acknowledged that the defendant, as a distributor of motion pictures shown in the theater operated by the defendant, confirmed the number of visitors to the theater in accordance with the agreement that Co-defendant 1 of this court, who is a motion picture distributor, as an employee of the motion picture company, distributed profits among co-defendant 2 of this court, and the motion picture distributor, the court below acknowledged that the defendant's best nature as an employee in charge of the defendant's autopsy was unlocked, and recognized that he admitted the minor while carrying out the most daily work on behalf of the defendant's employee, and the court of first instance judged that the defendant and co-defendant 2 of the court of first instance had the relation between the defendant and his employee as prescribed in the above joint penal provisions, and there was no error of law by misapprehending the legal principles as to the concept of employees in joint penal provisions such as the theory of lawsuit.

In addition, if an employee is an act related to a business owner's occupation in appearance, and if the employee commits an illegal act in the course of performing his business owner's occupation, the motive of the illegal act is merely for the benefit of the employee or a third party, and even if not for the business owner's occupation, the business owner cannot be exempted from the liability for the negligence (see Supreme Court Decision 77Do412 delivered on May 24, 197). The judgment of the court below is not erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the defendant's occupation

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Jong-chul (Presiding Justice)