At around 22:00 on June 21, 201, the Defendant: (a) had a juvenile G (the age of 15 at that time) introduced through “F news media” operated by E, for the purpose of raising customers’ interest in entertainment; (b) had customers enjoy entertainment by drinking alcohol with customers or singing or dancing.

2. Determination

A. In the relevant legal doctrine criminal trial, the conviction should be based on evidence with probative value, which makes it possible for a judge to have a conviction that the facts charged are true beyond a reasonable doubt, and if there is no such proof, the conviction cannot be judged even if there is a suspicion of guilt against the defendant.

(B) Supreme Court Decision 2001Do2823 Decided August 21, 2001 and Supreme Court Decision 2005Do8675 Decided March 9, 2006, etc.

The gist of the assertion is consistently asserted from the investigative agency to the court that the Defendant did not allow G to receive entertainment as shown in the instant facts charged, and the prosecutor submits as evidence that conforms to the instant facts charged G, E’s respective statements, telephone contents, and investigation reports (verification of entertainment establishments) in the investigative agency and court.

C. First, in light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the record, G’s statement in the investigation agency and this court is difficult to believe that it is not reliable. ① As regards the period of service at the sidewalk operated by E among each of the statements in G and the working hours at each main point, etc., it is not consistent with the following. The second police suspect interrogation protocol (as of August 10, 201, the police officer interrogation protocol was included in the news report room, and the first day was 60,000 won on the first day, and 180,000 won on the second day.