beta
(영문) 수원지방법원 안양지원 2015.03.27 2014고정864

청소년보호법위반

Text

The sentence of sentence against the defendant shall be suspended.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

To the extent that it does not substantially disadvantage the defendant's exercise of his/her right to defense, each name of the juveniles is specified and the following facts of the crime are recognized without changes in indictment.

On May 27, 2014, at around 01:21, the Defendant sold 500cc/3 residuess, which are harmful drugs to juveniles, to E, F, and G, at the D points of the Defendant’s operation in Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government.

Summary of Evidence

1. Legal statement of witness G;

1. Partial statement of witness E and F;

1. A copy of the rebuttal;

1. Determination as to the assertion that he was unaware of the CCTV as a copy of CCTV inside the main point: (a) even if the appearance and behavior of E, F, and G (hereinafter “the above juveniles”) appears to be adult, the above juveniles were first faced with the above juveniles; (b) the above juveniles did not comply with the standards of “person who is not a juvenile”; (c) E and G were 16 years of age; and (d) F did not reach the age of 17 years of age.

In a large number of juveniles smoking, drinking, or speech as adults, it is difficult to view that there was any circumstance that makes it difficult to suspect the above juveniles as juveniles solely on the grounds that the defendant asserts, and ② the witness stated that “E and F had conducted an identification examination prior to the instant case on the third party including E and F, so he did not examine all the above juveniles and did not examine the identification card again.” The witness stated to the effect that “E had presented another person’s identification card to the employee prior to the instant case.” However, E made a statement corresponding to H’s statement by stating to the effect that “E was investigated by an investigative agency on suspicion of special rape, and even did not express the identification card.” However, in this court, he made a false statement in favor of the Defendant, despite being subject to punishment for unlawful use of official documents and perjury.