청소년보호법위반
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
1. The summary of the grounds of appeal reveals that the Defendant employed a juvenile G (real name H; hereinafter “H”) without confirming the age around 22:00 on October 29, 201. However, the Defendant had no intention to employ a juvenile since he was aware that he was not a juvenile since he was able to verify the status card of H on October 2, 201 at the time of confirming the status card of H on October 2, 201.
(M) In addition, the sentence of a fine of 1.5 million won imposed by the court below against the defendant is too unreasonable.
(F) Determination of misunderstanding of facts
A. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is a person who operates an entertainment drinking house in mutual name on the fourth floor of a commercial building located in Nam-gu Incheon Metropolitan City D.
If a business owner of a juvenile harmful business establishment intends to employ an employee, he/she shall confirm his/her age, and shall not employ a juvenile.
Nevertheless, at around 22:00 on October 29, 201, the Defendant employed a juvenile by having the said juvenile drink drink with customers by drinking alcohol, singing, dancing, etc., on the condition that he/she pays KRW 25,00 per hour without confirming the age of G (real name H, 17 years of age) that is a juvenile belonging to the “F” entertainment drinking house, which is a juvenile harmful business establishment, under the condition that he/she pays KRW 25,00 per hour.
B. The lower court determined that H appeared as a witness in the lower court’s judgment, and it was difficult for the Defendant to accurately memory H that was temporarily employed by the Defendant 10 days prior to the time of the instant case, on October 29, 201, when he first went to the said establishment, he did not examine the identification card, but did not examine the identification card on October 201, when he first went to the said establishment. Since it was difficult for the Defendant to accurately associate with H that which was temporarily employed by the Defendant 10 days prior to the time of the instant case.