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

The defendant is a person who engages in restaurant business in the name of "D" in Nam-gu C at port.

On November 17, 2017, the Defendant stated in the facts charged against E (V, 18 years of age) and six other juveniles, a juvenile, who found the above business establishment as a customer, as well as the facts charged against E (V, 18 years of age). However, Articles 59 subparag. 6 and 28(1) of the Juvenile Protection Act do not require that the purpose of profit-making should be the purpose of profit-making, and even if deleted, it does not seem to have any substantial disadvantage to the Defendant’s right to defense, and thus ex officio delete them.

The two main liquors, which are alcoholic beverages harmful to juveniles, were provided with 1 bottles free of charge.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

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

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

1. A statement of F and E;

1. Investigation report (in relation to E-Appearance and oral statement, a copy of a receipt and passbook shall be attached);

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to report internal investigation (10 pages of investigation records), internal investigation reports (on-site photographs);

1. Article 59 of the relevant Act on the facts constituting an offense and Articles 59 subparagraph 6 and 28 (1) of the Act on the Protection of Juveniles Eligible for Punishment (Selection of Penalty)

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

1. Determination on the assertion by the Defendant and his defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The defendant and his defense counsel asserted that "the defendant provided alcohol without compensation in the sense that H and his relatives have reduced the life of H in the course of drinking in a restaurant with the birth of H where he had a part of the restaurant operated by the defendant, and that he did not sell alcohol or sell food, so there was no intention to sell food." However, as seen earlier, the part of the above act was deleted for profit-making purposes as seen above, and thus, the decision is not made.

At the time, the defendant provided only alcohol to G et al. other than juveniles, and is a juvenile E et al.