청소년보호법위반
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by a fine of 500,000 won.
The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (1) although the court below found the defendant guilty by misunderstanding the facts, and (2) even if the court below found him guilty of domestic affairs, the court below's punishment (500,000 won of fine) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. Before determining the Defendant’s grounds for appeal, Article 59 subparag. 4 of the former Juvenile Protection Act (amended by Act No. 14067, Mar. 2, 2016) which was in force at the time of committing the act indicated in the instant facts charged provided that the statutory penalty was “a imprisonment for not more than two years or a fine not exceeding 10 million won.” However, Article 59 subparag. 4 of the same Act amended by Act No. 14067, Mar. 2, 2016 adjusted the statutory penalty by raising the amount of fine to “a imprisonment for not more than two years or a fine not exceeding 20 million won” under Article 59 subparag. 4 of the same Act, and Article 1 of the Addenda provides that “this Act shall enter into force on the date of its promulgation,” and Article 2 of the same Act provides that “When penal provisions are applied with respect to any offense before this Act
Therefore, the judgment of the court below which applied the revised Juvenile Protection Act to the crime stated in the above facts charged is erroneous in the application of the law and affected the conclusion of the judgment.
B. However, since the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts is still subject to the judgment of this court despite the above reasons for ex officio destruction, the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts is rejected, since the defendant can recognize the fact that outdoor advertisements, which are media materials harmful to juveniles, are sold openly to the roads of the C hotel, which are places where the general public pass
3. Therefore, the judgment of the court below is based on Article 364 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act, without examining the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing, on the ground of the above ex officio reversal.