[2] Whether a medical examination pocketbook (tentatively named health certificate) or a medical examination report can be deemed as a evidence with the public probative value of age (negative)

[3] The case holding that there is an intentional negligence in relation to the employment of juveniles against the owner of a business establishment banned from employing juveniles

1. As to the violation of the Juvenile Protection Act

In light of the legislative purpose of the Juvenile Protection Act, a business owner of a business establishment harmful to juveniles, such as entertainment tavern, shall not employ a juvenile for the purpose of protecting the juvenile. Therefore, in case where an entertainment bar business owner employs an employee at the relevant entertainment establishment, he/she shall verify the age of a person subject to employment based on his/her resident registration certificate or other evidence of public probative value to the extent similar to that of his/her age. If it is not easy for him/her to verify the age of a person subject to employment due to the loss of his/her identification card, etc., the owner of a business establishment harmful to juveniles shall withhold or refuse the employment of the person subject to employment until his/her age can be verified by public proof in light of the fact that the employment of a business establishment harmful to entertainment, such as entertainment tavern, is vulnerable to 20 years after the abolition of the health examination pocket system, the purpose and details of the establishment of the system, the purpose of issuance of a health examination report, and the result of examination of the person subject to employment to the extent similar to that of his/her resident registration certificate.

Examining the evidence of the court below and the court of first instance cited by the court below in light of the records, the defendants introduced Nonindicted 1 et al. as a juvenile and introduced them as an adult when employing them at their own business places, and the above Nonindicted 1 et al. also included personal information in the loan certificates, cash storage certificates, etc., which are written in order to conceal the fact that they are juveniles and lost their resident registration certificates. The above Nonindicted 1 et al. also included personal information in the loan certificates, cash storage certificates, etc., which are written to the business owners and written in advance. However, although the defendants entered the forged adult resident registration certificates, they did not belong to the defendants while doing so.

Therefore, as alleged in the ground of appeal by the Defendants, although the introduction business operator and the non-indicted 1 et al. believe that they were the resident registration numbers on the horse, the loan certificate or the cash storage certificate as they were, the non-indicted 1 called the mother of non-indicted 1 by using the phone contact number, the appearance of the non-indicted 1 et al. was to the extent that it was impossible to think that the defendant was the juvenile, the appearance of the non-indicted 1 et al. confirmed the health certificate stating the adult resident registration numbers, urged the non-indicted 1 et al. to be issued a new resident registration certificate, or the employment of the non-indicted 1 et al. was entrusted to the head office or manager of the non-indicted 1 et al., such circumstance alone does not constitute a necessary measure to confirm the age of juvenile as the owner of the business establishment harmful to juveniles, and therefore, the defendants had dolus

The judgment of the court below to the same purport is justifiable in light of the above facts and legal principles. The court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.

The Defendants’ ground of appeal on this issue is without merit.

2. As to the violation of the Prevention of Prostitution, etc. Act

Examining the evidence of the judgment below and the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court below in light of the records, it is justifiable to find the court below guilty of each crime of violation of the Prevention of Prostitution, etc. of the Defendants. The court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as otherwise alleged in the ground

3. On the issue of unfair sentencing

Even if there are various circumstances as argued in the Grounds for Appeal by the Defendants, the argument that the court below’s punishment is too heavy or that the business is not revoked cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Shin Hyun-chul (Presiding Justice)