A. Regarding the violation of the Juvenile Protection Act by mistake of facts, the Defendant, without knowledge of K andO, used the news reporting company that did not use the juveniles mainly, believed the news reporting company that used the 20th first first half of the year in this case. In doubtful cases, it was difficult for the Defendant to conduct an identification card inspection or return it to the knowledge that he was a minor, and thus, it was difficult for the Defendant to know that his mother was a minor. Therefore, there was no negligence in mind.

Nevertheless, the court below found all of the charges guilty, and the court below erred by misunderstanding the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (two years of suspended sentence for eight months of imprisonment, confiscation) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts, Article 26-2 subparag. 2 of the former Juvenile Protection Act (amended by Act No. 11179, Jan. 17, 2012; hereinafter the same shall apply) provides that no person shall allow a juvenile to provide entertainment services with customers for profit or to provide entertainment services by singing or dancing, etc., or allow a juvenile to provide such services. In light of the legislative purport of the above Act is to protect juveniles from various harmful environments including harmful acts so that juveniles can grow into a healthy character, it shall not be permitted to allow a juvenile to provide entertainment services (see Article 24(2) of the same Act; hereinafter the same shall apply); Article 20(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act and Article 26-2(2) of the same Act, even if the duty to confirm age is not explicitly provided for in the above Act, a juvenile harmful business entity as an entertainment drinking house or its employee to provide entertainment services to juveniles.