[2] Whether the provisions of the former Sound Records, Video Products, and Game Software Act and the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, which stipulate persons under 18 years of age as minors, constitute an exception to acts violating the Juvenile Protection Act (negative)

[3] The purport of Article 16 of the Criminal Code concerning mistake of law

[4] The case holding that the act of a video product lossr's act of allowing a juvenile from 18 to 19 years of age to enter his/her video room constitutes an error in law

[2] Notwithstanding Article 24(3) of the former Juvenile Protection Act (amended by Act No. 6479 of May 24, 2001; hereinafter referred to as the "Act"), Article 19 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 17350 of Aug. 25, 2001) provides that where juveniles are accompanied by persons with parental authority, etc., access shall be permitted under the conditions as prescribed by the Presidential Decree. Article 24(2) and (3) of the Act provides that where other Acts and subordinate statutes allow access if juveniles are accompanied by persons with parental authority, etc., access shall be permitted under the conditions as prescribed by other Acts and subordinate statutes. Article 8 subparag. 3, 5, the Enforcement Decree of the former Juvenile Protection Act (amended by Act No. 6473 of May 24, 2001; hereinafter referred to as the "Act"), and Article 24(3) of the former Juvenile Protection Act provides that entry of persons under the age limit of No. 1, etc. 3, including minors, is prohibited by Presidential Decree No. 181.

[3] The purpose of Article 16 of the Criminal Code is that a misunderstanding that one's act does not constitute a crime under the law is not punishable only when there is a justifiable ground for misunderstanding. It does not merely mean a site under the law, but generally mean a mistake that it does not constitute a crime if one's act constitutes a crime but, in his special circumstances, it is recognized that it does not constitute a crime under the law and there is a justifiable ground for misunderstanding

[4] The case holding that the act of a video product lossr's act of allowing juveniles aged between 18 and under 19 to enter his video product room constitutes a case where there are justifiable grounds for believing that the act was permitted by the relevant law

Meanwhile, Article 24(3) of the Act provides that juveniles may enter under the conditions as prescribed by the Presidential Decree, notwithstanding the provisions of Article 24(2) of the Act, if juveniles are accompanied by persons with parental authority, etc., and Article 19 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act (amended by the Presidential Decree No. 17350 of Aug. 25, 2001) provides that where juveniles are accompanied by persons with parental authority, etc. pursuant to the provisions of Article 24(2) and (3) of the Act, where other Acts and subordinate statutes permit access by juveniles, and other Acts and subordinate statutes provide that access by juveniles shall be governed by the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, and where other Acts and subordinate statutes provide for exceptions to the Act on the Sound Records, Video Products and Game Software (amended by the Act No. 6473 of May 24, 2001; hereinafter referred to as the "Act on the Sound Records, etc."), Article 8 subparag. 3 and 5 of the former Act and Article 14 [Attachment 1] of the Enforcement Decree of the Act provides that juveniles are under the age limit of access.

Therefore, the court below's decision that the business of allowing juveniles aged between 18 and under 19 to enter the video room is not subject to criminal punishment under the Juvenile Protection Act is an unlawful act of misunderstanding the legal principles as to Articles 51 subparagraph 7 and 24 (2) of the former Juvenile Protection Act. The ground of appeal pointing this out is with merit. However, as long as the court below's family decision is justified, the above error of the court below is not affected by the judgment, and the ground of appeal pointing this out is without merit.

2. The purport of Article 16 of the Criminal Act that the act of misunderstanding that one's act does not constitute a crime under Acts and subordinate statutes does not merely mean that the act of misunderstanding does not mean that one's act is punishable only when there is a justifiable ground for misunderstanding, but generally, it does not mean that it shall not be punishable in a case where it is recognized that it is permitted by Acts and subordinate statutes and does not constitute a crime in his own special circumstances and there is a justifiable reason for misunderstanding (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 9Do5026, Jun. 29, 2001; 200Do1696, Jan. 25, 2002).

The court below held that the defendant's act of not less than 18 years of age and less than 19 years of age is not subject to criminal punishment under the law, even if the defendant's act of not less than 18 years of age and less than 19 years of age is subject to criminal punishment under the law, and there is sufficient possibility that the defendant's act of not more than 18 years of age and not more than 19 years of age can be mistaken through the opposite interpretation of the above Sound Records, etc. Act and its enforcement decree, and that the defendant's act of not more than 18 years of age and less than 18 years of age and not more than 18 years of age and not more than 18 years of age and not more than 18 years of age and 19 years of age and 19 years of age and 19 years of age and 19 years of age and 19 years of age and 19 years of age and 18 years of age and 18 years of age, since the defendant's act of not being subject to the law.

In light of the above legal principles and records, the above judgment of the court below is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to Article 16 of the Criminal Act.

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Son Ji-yol (Presiding Justice)