A. Since the Defendant believed and employed F as an adult by reliance on F’s speech and behavior, it is difficult to deem that the Defendant had a criminal intent to commit the instant crime of violating the Juvenile Protection Act.

B. The sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant (the fine of KRW 1,00,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In light of the legislative purpose of the Juvenile Protection Act as to the assertion of mistake of facts, since the owner of a business establishment harmful to juveniles has a very strict responsibility for not employing the juvenile at the business establishment in order to protect the juvenile, the owner of the business establishment harmful to juveniles shall verify the age of the person subject to employment on the basis of resident registration certificate or other evidence of public probative value of age to the extent similar thereto when he employs the employee at the business establishment. If it is not easy to confirm the age of the person subject to employment on the ground that the person subject to employment was lost, and if it is not easy to confirm the age of the person subject to employment on the ground that the person was lost, the owner of the business establishment harmful to juveniles shall withhold or refuse the employment until the juvenile was able to verify the age of the person subject to employment on the basis of the fact that the person subject to employment at the business establishment was vulnerable to the public certification of the said age.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2002Do2425 Decided June 28, 2002, etc.). According to the above legal principle, the Defendant’s assertion on this part is recognized as having no record that the Defendant had received his/her identification card, etc. from F for the purpose of verifying age from F. According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court, F entered his/her birth date in the labor contract as “J” (No. 24 pages of the trial record), but further, it was known that the Defendant did not belong to the Defendant by using the forged adult identification card, etc.