Where the defendant fails to pay the above fine, one hundred thousand won shall be one day.

The defendant operates food service business under the trade name of "D" in Gwangju Mine-gu C.

No one shall sell drugs harmful to juveniles to juveniles.

Nevertheless, around 19:00 on December 25, 2014, the Defendant sold alcoholic beverages equivalent to KRW 31,500,000 in total, including the 1stma and 17 years of age, to the juvenile E (n, 17 years of age) and F (n, 15 years of age).

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each written statement of E and F;

1. On-site photographs;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes governing business reporting certificates;

1. Article 59 of the relevant Act on Criminal facts and Articles 59 subparagraph 6 and 28 (1) of the Protection of Juveniles Eligible for the Selection of Punishment;

1. Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. Judgment on the Defendant’s assertion under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. At the time of the summary of the claim, E, etc. was unaware of the juvenile.

2. In light of the legislative intent of the Juvenile Protection Act, since the owner and employees of a business establishment harmful to juveniles shall not have access to the business establishment for the purpose of protecting juveniles, it is highly strict and responsible for them. Thus, they shall objectively verify the age of persons who have access to the business establishment, which is highly probable to be juveniles, based on resident registration certificates or evidence with public probative value of their age to the extent similar to that of juveniles, unless there are circumstances that make it difficult to doubt the persons who access the business establishment objectively, and if juveniles have access to the business establishment due to their failure to take any measures to confirm their age by violating the above duty, barring any special circumstance, they shall be deemed as not guilty of the crime of violating the Juvenile Protection Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Do8039, Apr. 23, 2004). Considering the aforementioned legal principles and the above Supreme Court decisions, the crime of violating the Juvenile Protection Act, insofar as the Defendant did not take measures to confirm their age as above.