청소년보호법위반
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
The sentence of punishment against the Defendants shall be suspended.
1. The summary of the reasons for appeal is as follows: Defendant B did not confirm the age of “F” and “G” at the time and did not recognize the fact that they are juveniles, and sold alcoholic beverages to them.
Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant not guilty of the facts charged of this case, and thus, erred by misapprehending the facts and legal doctrine.
2. Determination
A. (1) Defendant B is an employee at “E main store” operated by Defendant A, located in Mapo-gu Seoul, Mapo-gu, Seoul, and three floors.
No one may sell alcoholic beverages, which are harmful to juveniles, to juveniles. On September 6, 2014, around 02:41, the Defendant sold to F (17 tax) and G (17 tax) a juvenile, 4 remaining alcoholic beverages, 1 enlisted alcoholic beverages, etc.
Shebly Defendant A, as the owner of the above main shop, has to perform the duty of supervision and supervision to prevent the employees from selling alcoholic beverages to juveniles. However, Defendant A neglected this duty, and Defendant B, an employee, sold alcoholic beverages to juveniles as above, thereby selling harmful drugs.
B. The lower court determined as follows: (a) at the time, the resident registration certificate of the 90-year student whose I altered; (b) the H presented another person’s resident registration certificate; (c) the J also presented another person’s driver’s license; and (d) G presented a foreign high school graduate photograph; and (c) J was working at the foregoing alcohol house.
The fact that he said that he was his birth, F was likely to have not existed at the time of the identification card inspection, H et al. continued two to three persons after entering the drinking house in the judgment, and there was an additional one as the defendants.
In light of the fact that it seems not easy to confirm the identity of the Defendants, there are circumstances where it is difficult for the Defendants to objectively doubt their visitors as juveniles. Thus, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is sufficient for the juveniles as shown in the facts charged.