A. The Defendant confirmed the resident registration certificate presented by E and thought that he was an adult, and did not know the fact that E was a juvenile.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts charged and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. In light of the various sentencing conditions of the Prosecutor’s instant case, the lower court’s sentence against the Defendant (two years of suspended sentence in six months of imprisonment) is too unfluent and unfair.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. In light of the legislative purpose, etc. of the Juvenile Protection Act, the lower court held that the proprietor of a business establishment harmful to juveniles, such as entertainment taverns, has a very strict responsibility for not employing juveniles at the business establishment for the purpose of protecting juveniles.

As such, in case where an entertainment bar proprietor employs an employee at the pertinent entertainment place, he/she shall verify the age of the employee on the basis of a resident registration certificate or other evidence of public probative value on the age equivalent thereto. If a juvenile enters the pertinent entertainment place by failing to take any measures for age verification by violating the duty of age verification and failing to take any measures, barring special circumstances, he/she shall be deemed to have the employer and the employee, barring any special circumstance, at least the violation of the Juvenile Protection Act due to the violation of the above legal provisions. In addition, E was 2 days away from the Defendant’s entertainment bar, and the Defendant reported the F resident registration certificate and reported the above resident registration certificate to him/her, and the purport of his/her statement is consistent with the Defendant’s assertion that he/she did not confirm that he/she was a minor, and that he/she did not report his/her resident registration certificate later.