청소년보호법위반
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
1. At the time of the instant case, the Defendant requested F and G to present identification cards and confirmed his identification cards. Since all of his identification cards are written as the births in 1995, the Defendant sold alcoholic beverages believed to be not all juveniles, the Defendant had no intention to commit the instant crime.
Therefore, the judgment of the court below which convicted the Defendant of the facts charged of this case is erroneous and adversely affected by the judgment.
2. Determination
A. In light of the purport and content of the Act on the Protection of Juveniles, etc., in light of the purport and content of the relevant legal doctrine, an employer, such as the main shop, who sells alcoholic beverages harmful to juveniles, is responsible for not selling alcoholic beverages to juveniles for the protection of juveniles. As such, in the event that alcoholic beverages are sold at the main shop, etc., the subject’s age should be verified based on resident registration certificate or other evidence of public probative value equivalent thereto, and if there are doubts such as the difference between the photographs and actual objects on the resident registration certificate presented by the subject, the case where the juvenile purchases alcoholic beverages using other person’s resident registration certificate in order to conceal his/her status and age, etc. is obligated to take additional measures to verify the age of the juvenile’s age when considering the fact that the juvenile purchases alcoholic beverages by using other person’s resident registration certificate (see Supreme Court Decision 2014Do5173, Jul. 10, 2014). b).
① At the time of the instant case, alcoholic beverages are performed at the instant restaurant where the Defendant was employed.