When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

The defendant is a person who operates a general restaurant in the name of "C" in Gwangju Northern-gu B.

No one shall sell, lend, or distribute drugs harmful to juveniles to juveniles.

Nevertheless, around August 23, 2014, the Defendant sold to four persons, such as juvenile D (V, 16 years of age) at the above place on August 23, 2014, 2002, 1 disease and 1 disease, which are harmful juvenile drugs.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Written statements of D;

1. A copy of the control report on public morals business;

1. Application of statutes on field photographs;

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. It is recognized that the reasons for sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the provisional payment order include the following facts: (a) the Defendant committed the instant crime in which the Defendant was unable to carefully examine the juveniles under the condition that the health of the Defendant was not complete after the military cancer operation at the time; (b) there seems to be some circumstances to consider the circumstances; (c) there seems to exist no criminal records exceeding the fine; and (d) the Defendant appears to have been divorced before 20 years ago and under the circumstances where he was receiving navigational cancer treatment while supporting the children.

However, the crime of this case is a matter of selling alcohol to juveniles at the main point operated by the defendant and impeding their sound growth, and in light of the legislative intent of the Juvenile Protection Act to protect juveniles from various harmful environments, including harmful acts, so that juveniles can grow into healthy character, the crime of this case is not easy to commit the crime of this case, and the defendant committed the crime of this case without due care even though he had the record of being punished for a fine three times due to the violation of the Food Sanitation Act in the past.