청소년보호법위반
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Expenses of the trial shall be borne by the defendant.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles are employees employed by K who are actually a business owner, not a D's business owner, and they do not employ a juvenile E, and these are supported by the testimony of the witness E at the trial and the I's factual confirmation.
Nevertheless, the court below found the Defendant guilty on the basis of F’s false statement. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the interpretation and application of “employment” under Article 29(1) of the Juvenile Protection Act.
B. The sentence of the lower court (an amount of KRW 2,00,000) that is unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.
2. Determination on the misapprehension of facts and misapprehension of legal principles
A. Although the main points of the facts charged are not to employ juveniles, the owner of a business harmful to juveniles should not employ them, the defendant employed E ( South, 18 years old) as employees from July 2, 2016 to July 16, 2016, as a person who operates a entertainment shop, which is a juvenile harmful business establishment whose access and employment is prohibited by the trade name, "D," located in Y-gu Seoul Metropolitan City.
B. The lower court also asserted the same content as the grounds for appeal on this part.
On the other hand, the court below acknowledged the following circumstances based on the evidence of the court below, i.e., F who served as D's employee, is the defendant in the investigative agency and the court of the court below.
The defendant was the president, and he was directly employed by the defendant.
E was an employee before he was employed.
The fact that the registered business operator is K, the mother of the defendant, is the mother of the defendant, was not known at all, and K is not fit.
The defendant was living in D.
“The above statement was made, and there is no circumstance that the above statement was false, and ② the Defendant asserted at the investigative agency that E was able to play in D with F’s friendship, but F was in the investigative agency and the court of original instance before work in D.