2...

A. The Plaintiff is operating the PC in the name of “C” (hereinafter “the instant PC bank”) in Seongdong-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City.

B. On August 18, 2015, the chief of the Jeonju Police Station discovered that D, an employee of the instant PC bank, is working in the instant PC bank as a business establishment banned from employing juveniles aged 18 (from August 16, 2015 to 15:00 on the same day) and requested the Defendant to take administrative dispositions on August 18, 2015.

C. On February 11, 2016, the Defendant: (a) applied Articles 29(1) and 54(2) of the former Juvenile Protection Act (Amended by Act No. 14067, Mar. 2, 2016); and (b) Article 44(2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Juvenile Protection Act (Amended by Presidential Decree No. 27354, Jul. 19, 2016); and (b) imposed a penalty surcharge of KRW 5 million (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

Meanwhile, on November 9, 2015, D was issued a summary order of KRW 500,000 (the Jeonju District Court 2015 High Court 2015 High Court 6684) on the grounds of criminal facts of violating the Juvenile Protection Act with the same contents as the above disposition, and the Plaintiff was not indicted on the grounds that D did not know of such criminal acts.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 3, Gap evidence 6 to 8, Eul evidence 1 to 6 (including branch numbers), the purport of whole pleadings

2. The legality of the instant disposition

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff left the instant PC to D, an employee of the Plaintiff, because the Plaintiff’s health was not good, and that D was subject to criminal punishment on the ground of the violation of the Juvenile Protection Act while the Plaintiff was subject to criminal punishment on the ground of violation of the Juvenile Protection Act, and that the Plaintiff did not impose any criminal punishment on the Plaintiff in an economic difficult situation, etc., the instant disposition is excessively harsh to the Plaintiff.