2. Determination

A. In light of the legislative intent of the Juvenile Protection Act, the employers and employees of establishments banned from accessing juveniles are given a very strict responsibility not to admit juveniles to such establishments for the purpose of protecting juveniles.

As such, barring any circumstances where it is objectively difficult for the business owner or employee of a business establishment prohibited from allowing access to juveniles, the business owner or employee of the business owner shall verify the age of the person subject to access based on resident registration certificates or evidence with public probative value of age to the extent of age that the person is likely to be juveniles, unless there are any circumstances that make it difficult to doubt the person subject to access as juveniles. If the business owner or employee fails to take any measures to confirm the age due to his/her violation of the duty to verify the age, and thereby the juvenile enters the business establishment, barring any special circumstances, the business owner or employee is deemed to have do not have the duty to do so at least the crime of violating the Juvenile Protection Act due to the violation of the above legal provisions (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision

Even according to the defendant's assertion itself, the defendant did not confirm the age of the subject in accordance with his resident registration certificate or evidence of public probative value of age to the extent similar to that of his/her resident registration certificate, and it is deemed that the defendant did not commit the violation of the Juvenile Protection Act.

3. Therefore, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, since the defendant's appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.