If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won shall be one day.

The Defendant is a person who operates a general restaurant under the trade name of Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government and 101.

No one shall sell drugs, etc. harmful to juveniles to juveniles.

Nevertheless, around October 1, 2016, the Defendant sold 1 residues 1 to three juveniles, including E (16) from the above “D” around October 1, 2016.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of witness E, F and G;

1. Application of statutes on site photographs;

1. Article 59 of the relevant Act and Articles 59 subparagraph 6 and 28 (1) of the Juvenile Protection Act, the selection of fines for criminal facts, and the selection of fines;

1. Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act concerning the confinement in the workhouse [the defendant and his defense counsel] of the Act on the Custody in the Labor House / [the defendant and his defense counsel have already verified his identification card to F before two months, and the visiting juveniles such as F at the time of the instant case had no intention to sell alcoholic beverages to juveniles because they make cremation and dyeing;

However, in this Court, E, F, and G, a juvenile, stated that there is no request from the defendant to present an identification card, and the F was not required to present an identification card even if it was previously written by the defendant.

In full view of the following facts: (a) the above youth stated that there were no special motive or circumstance to make a false statement for the purpose of punishing the defendant; (b) the above youth was credibility in each of the above statements; (c) E, F, and G were merely born in 2000; and (d) the above youth was reported to the police by the surrounding people because they did not appear to be adults; and (c) the above youth’s assertion is without merit.

The reason for sentencing is that the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence by selling liquor to juveniles even in 2016, and that the Defendant reflects the instant crime, etc., it does not seem that the penalty prescribed by the summary order is excessive even if considering the sentencing conditions in the instant trial.