The Defendant was indicted on August 17, 2007: around 20, the general restaurant located in the Seo-gu Incheon Dong, Incheon Metropolitan City, on the charge that ○○○○, an employee of the Defendant, sold 3 soldiers, who are harmful to juveniles, to juveniles (the age of 18), who found the Defendant as customers in connection with the Defendant’s business, at KRW 9,00,00, and the trial is in progress under this court’s jurisdiction.

2. Article 54 (Joint Penal Provisions) of the Juvenile Protection Act provides that "where an agent, employee, or other worker of an individual commits an offense under Article 51 (8) in connection with the business of the individual, not only shall the offender be punished, but also the individual shall be punished by a fine under each corresponding Article." (hereinafter referred to as "the legal provision of this case") is in violation of the Constitution. The contents of the provision and related provisions are as follows.

○ When a representative of a corporation or organization, or an agent, employee or other servant of a corporation, organization or individual commits an offence under Articles 49-2 through 49-4 and 50 through 53 in connection with the business of such corporation, organization or individual, not only shall such offender be punished, but also such corporation, organization or individual shall be punished by a fine under each relevant Article.

○ Any person who falls under any of the following subparagraphs (Penal Provisions) of Article 51 of the Juvenile Protection Act shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than two years or by a fine not exceeding 10 million won:

8. A person who has sold liquors under the Liquor Tax Act or the tobacco under the Tobacco Business Act to juveniles in violation of Article 26 (1).

Article 26 of the Juvenile Protection Act (Protection of Juveniles from Drugs Harmful to Juveniles, etc.) (1) No person shall sell, lend, or distribute to juveniles drugs harmful to juveniles. In such cases, the same shall not apply to cases where drugs harmful to juveniles are sold, leased, or distributed using automatic vending machines and vending machines: Provided, That the same shall not apply to the cases prescribed by the Presidential Decree, which are sold for learning purposes or for medical treatment.

3. Presumption of the judgment

Since the existence of the above case is different depending on whether the legal provision of this case is unconstitutional, the issue of whether the legal provision of this case is unconstitutional or not is the premise of the judgment in this case.

4. Article 51 subparagraph 8 of the Juvenile Protection Act provides that an individual's agent, employee, or other employee (hereinafter "employee") violates Article 51 subparagraph 8 of the same Act and does not provide for the reason or reason for the exemption from liability for the employee's criminal act. Therefore, if an employee is found to have violated Article 51 subparagraph 8 of the Juvenile Protection Act, regardless of whether the employee committed an act that is likely to be subject to criticism on the criminal act of the employee, i.e., whether the employee actually participated in, or instructed or assisted the employee's criminal act, or whether the employee was negligent in guiding and supervising the employee's criminal act related to the business, the legal provision of this case is immediately punished as a fine under Article 51 subparagraph 8 of the Juvenile Protection Act. This is the basic principle of criminal law. At the same time, anyone who is the principle inherent in the principle of the rule of law under the Constitution, and at the same time, cannot be deemed to have violated Article 10 of the Constitution that guarantees the employee's own responsibility with dignity and value and responsibility.

In addition, constitutional statutory interpretation is based on the premise of interpretation to the extent possible in light of the language and purpose of the legal provision, and it cannot be interpreted differently beyond the scope of literal interpretation despite the explicit intent of the legislator who is inferred from the text and purpose of the legal provision. Therefore, it is difficult to interpret the legal provision of this case by adding the requirement of "in a case where the legal provision of this case is recognized as a negligence in the appointment and supervision of business managers (other causes attributable to business managers)" to the criminal act of employees.

Therefore, the legal provision of this case is contrary to the principle of responsibility, which is the basic principle of criminal law, by imposing punishment without asking for the responsibility for another person's crime. Therefore, it is reasonable to deem that it violates the Constitution in violation of the principle of a rule of law and the purport of Article 10 of

5. Conclusion

Thus, the legal provision of this case is not only the premise of the judgment of this case, but also the substantial ground to recognize it as unconstitutional, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges

Judges