A shall be punished by a fine of KRW 500,000,000,000,000,000.

The above fines are imposed by the Defendants.

1. Defendant A’s violation of the Juvenile Protection Act is an employee of a general restaurant in the name of “D”.

No one shall sell drugs, etc. harmful to juveniles to juveniles or provide them free of charge.

Nevertheless, around 03:00 on June 4, 2017, the Defendant sold beer 2, including F (18 years of age, women), etc., within the main point of “D” 4th floor of Sungnam-si building E-gu, Sungnam-si, Sungnam-si.

2. Defendant B’s violation of the Juvenile Protection Act is a person who operates a general restaurant with the trade name “D”.

In relation to the defendant's work at the same time and place as the preceding one, the employee sold alcoholic beverages to the defendant as stated in the facts constituting the crime in the preceding paragraph.

Summary of Evidence

1. The Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Each protocol concerning the examination of suspects of F and G;

1. On-site photographs;

1. Passport photographing photographs;

1. Kakao Stockholm photographs and records of recording [the Defendants and the defense counsel did not confirm the identification card of the juveniles on the day of the instant case, but before several months, the passport pictures were confirmed through smartphones of the said juveniles, and Defendant B educated the employees to thoroughly verify the identification card.

The argument is asserted.

However, the case where a person holding a legitimate identification card stores and carries his/her identification card on a smartphone for the purchase of tobacco or alcohol, etc., is an exceptional case, and such photograph confirmation alone is obliged to “the other party’s age verification” as stipulated in Article 28(3) of the Juvenile Protection Act, based on the characteristics of smartphones that can be disseminated through various channels and obtained by altering potos, etc.

In light of the Defendant A’s attitude that the above circumstances asserted as justifiable grounds, Defendant B was not negligent in giving due attention and supervision to prevent a violation.

It does not seem that it does not appear.

. Defendants