[청소년보호법위반][공2001.9.1.(137),1903]
The case holding that where an employee of the main office sells alcoholic beverages to a person other than a juvenile who predicted that he/she would drink the alcoholic beverages that he/she provided, it does not directly constitute a violation of the Juvenile Protection Act which prohibits the sale of alcoholic beverages to a juvenile under Article 51 subparagraph 8 or Article 26 (1) of the Juvenile Protection Act.
The case holding that where an employee of the main office sells alcoholic beverages to a person other than a juvenile who predicted that he/she would drink the alcoholic beverages that he/she provided, it does not directly constitute a violation of the Juvenile Protection Act which prohibits the sale of alcoholic beverages to a juvenile under subparagraph 8 of Article 51 and Article 26 (1) of the Juvenile Protection Act.
Article 26(1) and Article 51 Subparag. 8 of the Juvenile Protection Act
Defendant 1 and one other
Defendants
Incheon District Court Decision 2000No3019 delivered on March 29, 2001
The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Incheon District Court Panel Division.
1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below affirmed the judgment of the court of first instance which convicted all the Defendants by applying Article 51 subparag. 8, Article 26(1), and Article 54 of the Juvenile Protection Act, on the ground that Defendant 1, an employee of the main office operated by Defendant 2, was found to have sold liquor to the Nonindicted Party, a juvenile, on December 29, 199.
2. However, the above fact-finding by the court below is not easily acceptable.
According to the evidence cited by the court below, in particular, the non-indicted 1 and the non-indicted 1's statement, etc., the above non-indicted 1, who was a juvenile at the time, completed on-site employment training as a high school student, and entered the main points of this case, accompanied by the above booms, etc. in order to attend the events held by the above booms and booms, not the juvenile, but the juvenile, and the above booms and booms, etc., and calculated the price in advance. Thus, in light of the circumstances leading up to the entry into the main points of this case by the non-indicted 1 and the calculation process of the main points of alcohol and the values of alcohol, it cannot be deemed that Defendant 1 sold alcoholic beverages to the non-indicted 1 who was a juvenile.
Therefore, even if Defendant 1 predicted that he would drink the alcoholic beverages that he provided, and sold the alcoholic beverages to a person other than a juvenile, who is not a juvenile, he does not directly constitute a violation of the Juvenile Protection Act No. 8 of Article 51 and Article 26 (1) of the Juvenile Protection Act concerning the act.
Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the defendants guilty is erroneous by misunderstanding facts against the rules of evidence, or by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the sale crime under the Juvenile Protection Act, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. Thus, the ground of appeal pointing this out has merit.
3. Therefore, without examining the remaining grounds of appeal, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.
Justices Son Ji-yol (Presiding Justice)