청소년보호법위반
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is as follows: (a) the Defendant had been aware of the fact that he had been adult through the process of verifying the identification card of customers through the employee-friendly organizations at the time, and had been aware of the fact that juveniles were included in the process of working, but the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in the instant case, and the lower court’s punishment is too heavy.
2. In light of the content of the provisions of the Act related to the Protection of Juveniles and the legislative purport of the Juvenile Protection Act, if a juvenile enters the relevant establishment, the owner or employee of the establishment prohibited from entering the establishment must verify the age of the juvenile on the basis of resident registration certificate or evidence with public probative value of age to a certain age group of the juvenile (see Supreme Court Decisions 93Do2914, Jan. 14, 1994; 2002Do2425, Jun. 28, 2002; 2002Do2425, Jun. 28, 2002). If the juvenile did not take any measures to verify the age of the juvenile and did not take any measures to confirm that the juvenile violated the Juvenile Protection Act, barring any special circumstance, at least do negligence in the violation of the Juvenile Protection Act to the owner or employee of the establishment, barring the said establishment’s age (see Supreme Court Decisions 203Do8039, Apr. 23, 2004; 2007Do717.).
Therefore, the defendant was aware that there is a juvenile among customers and sold alcohol to juveniles.
I would like to say.
The defendant's assertion of facts cannot be accepted.
In addition, even if considering various sentencing factors indicated in the petition of appeal, statement of reasons for appeal, and other records of trial of the defendant, the sentence of the court below cannot be deemed unfair.