The term “distribution” and “providing” under the Juvenile Protection Act do not distinguish between the other party receiving the goods from “the public” or “a specific person”, but are distinguished depending on whether the other party receiving the goods has the intention to use the goods for a specific purpose, but do not constitute “distribution” on the ground that the goods were provided to a specific person, and the lower court acquitted the specific person of the facts charged in this case. In so determining, the lower court erred by misapprehending legal principles

Judgment

A. Around 17:00 on August 12, 2013, the Defendant: (a) provided the beer as a drug harmful to juveniles to the victim C (the age of 12) and distributed drugs harmful to juveniles to the juvenile, at the office operated by the Defendant himself/herself on the 5th floor of Seongbuk-gu, Seongbuk-gu, Seongbuk-gu; and (b) provided the beer as a drug harmful to juveniles

B. As to the facts charged of this case, the court below prosecuted that the defendant's act of selling or lending drugs harmful to juveniles or providing such drugs free of charge to juveniles for profit, while Article 59 subparagraph 6 of the Juvenile Protection Act provides that the defendant's act of selling, selling, distributing, or providing such drugs harmful to juveniles free of charge shall be punished. The "distribution" is distinguishable from the "provision" of the purport that it provides a certain article widely divided to many people. The defendant's act does not constitute "distribution" and thus, the above facts charged are not guilty on the ground that the defendant's act does not constitute "distribution."

Examining the intent of each provision of the Juvenile Protection Act and the meaning of each text, the meaning of “distribution” under the above Act refers to an act that is widely divided to many persons, and the act of offering this case without compensation is not included in the concept of distribution.