[2] Where the judgment of the court below is reversed for the benefit of the defendant, the case reversing the judgment of the court below as to the co-defendant on the ground that the reason for reversal is common to the co-defendant

[2] Where the judgment of the court below is reversed for the benefit of the defendant, the case reversing the judgment of the court below against the co-defendant on the ground that the reason for reversal is common to co-defendant who did not submit

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged that the first instance court's lawful investigation and admitted the evidence and found the defendants to be in charge of cleaning the guest room in the operation of each of the houses of this case, and that the defendants were in charge of the actual control and management of women's house, and that the multiple employees of this case were under the control and management of the defendants, and that the entry of the multiple employees of this case was under the visit of the harmful social environment, and that the defendants were under the visit of the harmful businesses and protect and relieve the juveniles from the harmful social environment, and that the defendants were under the control and management of the entertainment establishments of this case, and that the defendants' act of delivering the accommodation of this case to the employees of this case 2 of the former Juvenile Protection Act (amended by Act No. 5817 of Feb. 5, 199; hereinafter referred to as the "former Juvenile Protection Act"), and that the defendants' act of delivering the accommodation of this case to the employees of this case 4 of the former Juvenile Protection Act (amended by Act No. 581 of Feb. 5, 1998). 2 of this case.

2. Judgment on the grounds of appeal

A. As to the mistake of facts

Examining the admitted evidence of the first instance court maintained by the court below in light of the records, the fact-finding by the court below that the defendants admitted a juvenile to a lodging facility is just and there is no violation of law of mistake of facts due to violation of the rules of evidence as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.

B. Regarding misapprehension of legal principles

However, each member of the above cases committed by the defendants constitutes a business establishment harmful to juveniles under Article 2 subparag. 5 of the former Act, and each act of violation of the Juvenile Protection Act was punished under Article 51 subparag. 7 and Article 24(2) of the former Act at the time of committing the crime. However, it seems reasonable and desirable to prohibit the defendants from entering a accommodation facility completely, such as the defendants' assertion. In addition, according to the official gazette No. 14125 of Feb. 5, 1999, according to the social atmosphere to strengthen the protection of juveniles from various harmful acts, the punishment provision for harmful acts was newly established to protect juveniles from various harmful acts, and since Article 5817 of the former Act was amended to the effect that the above act constitutes a violation of the Juvenile Protection Act’s Article 2 subparag. 7 and Article 24(2) of the former Act, the revision of the Act’s Article 2 subparag. 2 of the former Juvenile Protection Act’s Article 1 of the Juvenile Protection Act’s Act which did not apply to the above changed act of juveniles.

In addition, among the Defendants of this case, Defendants 2, 3, and 4 did not submit the appellate brief so far, but in this case, the judgment of the court below is reversed for the benefit of the Defendant, and the reasons for reversal are common to the above 2, 3, and 4, co-defendants who did not submit the appellate brief, and thus, the judgment of the court below is reversed (see Supreme Court Decision 61Do518, Sept. 20, 1962).

3. Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the remaining grounds of appeal, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating

Justices Lee Hong-hoon (Presiding Justice)