청소년보호법위반
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by a fine of 400,000 won.
The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal reveals that the Defendant: (a) inspected identification cards; (b) sold liquor to persons who are not minors; and (c) sold alcoholic beverages to persons who are not minors; and (d) sold alcoholic beverages with youth E, but was guilty of the Defendant, the lower judgment that found the Defendant guilty was erroneous and adversely affected the judgment.
2. Determination
A. In a case where a person operating a restaurant had only adults at the time of giving alcohol to the persons who entered the restaurant, and they have drinking alcoholic beverages later, and later became joint with juveniles, unless there were circumstances for a restaurant operator to anticipate that the juvenile was joint with the restaurant operator later, or the juvenile was given additional alcohol while recognizing it after the juvenile was joint with the restaurant, the restaurant operator cannot be deemed to have sold the remaining alcoholic beverages to the juvenile under the Juvenile Protection Act even if the juvenile was partially drinking, unless the restaurant operator was under circumstances for predicting that the juvenile was joint with the restaurant operator later.
(See Supreme Court Decision 2001Do6032 delivered on January 11, 2002). B.
The following facts are acknowledged according to the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below.
Juvenile E entered a restaurant operated by the defendant with a person who is not known of F, G, or name, and F and G entered the restaurant first, and E entered the last.
After E et al. joined two additional wards, the defendant or employee did not verify the identification card of E in the process.
C. According to the above legal principles and facts of recognition, the Defendant, a juvenile, did not conduct an identification card inspection, and sold additional 2 soldiers, so it can be recognized that the Defendant sold 2 soldiers to the juvenile, E.
However, this is true that there was a circumstance that the defendant could anticipate that E, a juvenile, would be combined at the time when the first week was granted to F and G.