청소년보호법위반
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by a fine of 500,000 won.
The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.
1. The summary of the prosecutor's appeal grounds is that the defendant only conducted a formal identification examination only for the F accompanied with E, but did not conduct a separate identification examination for E, and therefore, the defendant had dolusence as to the fact that E can be a juvenile at least.
Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below that acquitted the charged facts of this case is erroneous and adversely affected by the judgment.
2. Determination
A. On July 26, 2014, the summary of the facts charged in the instant case: (a) on July 26, 2014, the Defendant: (b) sold to E (the age 17) a juvenile, who was found to be a customer from the main points of the operation of Defendant on the 11st floor of the 11st floor of the Manam-si, Sungnam-si, without properly verifying the identification card; and (c) sold to E (the age 17) a liquor, a liquor, a week 1,00ccc
B. The lower court found the Defendant not guilty of the instant facts charged on the ground that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to recognize that the Defendant was a juvenile, and that there is no other evidence to acknowledge this differently.
C. In light of the legislative intent of the Juvenile Protection Act, 1) as to the determination of the party, the employer and employees of a business establishment prohibited from allowing access to juveniles are highly strict and responsible for not selling alcoholic beverages to juveniles for the protection of juveniles. Thus, barring any circumstances that make it difficult to doubt visitors as juveniles from an objective perspective, the subject’s age should be verified based on resident registration certificates or evidence with public probative value of age to the degree equivalent thereto.
If a juvenile enters the relevant business establishment by failing to take any measures to confirm the age in violation of the duty to verify the age of the business owner and his/her employee, then the employer and his/her employee shall, unless there are special circumstances, be at least due to a violation of the above provision of the law.