A. In fact, E, a juvenile misunderstanding the fact, does not have a drinking within the Defendant’s main point, and the Defendant should be deemed not to have sold the drinking to the above E, but to have sold the drinking to the adult male who had been engaged in the same day.

Even if they sold alcohol to the above E, the defendant did not know that E was a juvenile, so there is no intention to commit a violation of the Juvenile Protection Act.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (an amount of KRW 1.5 million) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In light of the content and legislative purpose of the Juvenile Protection Act, a person who sells a drug harmful to juveniles, such as alcoholic beverages, imposes a very strict liability for not selling it to juveniles. In selling it, unless there are circumstances objectively deemed difficult for a buyer to doubt as a juvenile, the age of the other party shall be confirmed based on resident registration certificates or evidence with public probative value of age to the extent that it is similar to that of the juvenile. If the business owner or employee purchases a drug harmful to juveniles due to failing to take any measures to confirm age in violation of the duty to verify age, barring any special circumstance, it is recognized that the business owner or employee did not commit a violation of the Juvenile Protection Act due to a violation of the above Act (see Supreme Court Decision 2013Do8385, Sept. 27, 2013). In other words, the lower court’s following circumstances acknowledged by evidence duly admitted and lawfully admitted that the number of male customers was 160,000,000 male customers and 24, respectively, at the time of regulating the age of this case.