When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

The defendant is a person who operates entertainment centers in the name of "D" located in the Jeonsan-gu Seoul Metropolitan City, Jeonju-si, and the above entertainment centers are juvenile harmful businesses whose entry and employment are prohibited.

The owner of a business harmful to juveniles shall not employ juveniles.

Nevertheless, from July 2, 2016 to July 16, 2016, the Defendant employed “D” as a juvenile E ( South and 18 years old) as an employee.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of witness F;

1. A protocol concerning the examination of suspect concerning F by the prosecution;

1. A protocol concerning the examination of suspect of the police in relation to F;

1. Statement made by the police with regard to F;

1. Each internal investigation report (the monetary records of six pages, F with D Employees, of evidence);

1. Each investigation report (Submission of data by the reporter, the telephone details with reference E, the telephone call details with reference witnesses E, the result of on-site CCTV verification, the result of confirmation of the phone number of reference witnesses E, the telephone call details with G business owners, the telephone contents from H phone numbers, the confirmation of cell phone numbers subscribed in I, the J, and G delivery details, and accompanying telephone details);

1. The reporter and the Kakao Stockholm closures with E;

1. The details of each communication data and currencies;

1. Application of each statute on photographs;

1. Article 58 of the relevant Act on the facts constituting an offense and Articles 58 subparagraph 4 and 29 (1) of the Act on the Protection of Juveniles who have electively sentenced to a penalty;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act concerning the order of provisional payment;

1. Determination on the assertion of the Defendant and his/her defense counsel under Article 186(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, which costs of lawsuit

1. The Defendant and his defense counsel’s assertion is not the operator of D, and the mother of the Defendant, a business operator of D, had attempted to diving, and thus, the Defendant did not employ a juvenile.

2. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence revealed earlier, reasonable consideration is made by the Defendant’s employment of juvenile E while operating D, a juvenile harmful business establishment.