logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 울산지방법원 2017.11.16 2016고정1100
청소년보호법위반
Text

The defendant shall be innocent.

Reasons

1. The summary of the facts charged of the instant case shall not sell, lend, distribute, or provide free of charge juveniles with drugs harmful to juveniles;

Nevertheless, around March 31, 2016, the Defendant served as an employee at the D convenience store located in Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-gu, Seoul-do, and sold tobacco 1,500 won for “nick-gu,” which is a juvenile harmful drug, to E (16 years old) without verifying the identification card.

2. The plate E purchased tobacco from the Defendant at a convenience store (hereinafter “instant convenience store”) where the Defendant works in around 22:00 to 23:00 on March 31, 2016, relatively consistent in this law and investigative agencies.

Money has been given in the calculation unit, and if there is a toilet, the defendant has brought tobacco.

Only several times the convenience points of this case purchased tobacco in such a way.

In light of the fact that the statement on the method of tobacco purchase is very specific, and the circumstance why E gave money to the Defendant at the time of the instant case is unclear after giving money to the Defendant, there is a possibility that the Defendant has sold tobacco to E.

I seem to appear.

However, the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this court, namely, ① the Defendant consistently denied the facts of the crime from the investigative agency to this court, ② there is no record of selling tobacco 1 on March 31, 2016, ② there is no record of selling tobacco 22:00 to 23:00 on March 31, 2016, ③ the head office of the convenience store of this case is conducting inventory of the convenience store of this case by quarter, ③ the head office of the convenience store of this case is conducting inventory inspection on the convenience store of this case; ④ the actual quantity of tobacco 'the result of the inventory inspection conducted on June 13, 2016, is consistent with the quantity of inventory on the account book. ④ In this court, E has changed the remainder from the convenience store of this case to the quantity of inventory on the account book.

arrow