logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 의정부지방법원 고양지원 2015.11.20 2015고정888
청소년보호법위반
Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 700,000.

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

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is a person who works as an employee at a 'D cafeteria' located on the 1st floor in Gyeyang-gu Seoul Metropolitan City.

In spite of the fact that no one sells, lends, distributes, or provides to juveniles drugs harmful to juveniles without compensation, the Defendant sold to E (n, female, 17 years of age) and F (n, 17 years of age) juveniles in the restaurant around March 10, 2015.

Summary of Evidence

1. Each legal statement of witness E and F;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to each police suspect examination protocol to the accused;

1. Article 59 subparagraph 6 of the Juvenile Protection Act and Article 28 (1) of the same Act (to select a fine in general) concerning facts constituting an offense;

1. Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

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

1. The alleged defendant inspected the identification card of E and F, and received a third party identification card which the above juveniles had a chance to do, and provided an alcoholic beverage with the knowledge of adult reduction, so there is no criminal intent.

2. According to the evidence duly admitted by this court, E and F testified that no person has been subject to the identification examination by entering the restaurant of this case, E and F testified that there was no person who had been subject to the identification examination by the time of ordering the drinking, the fact that E and F was combined with male-parents of E and F, but this case was revealed by F's report by the male-parents of F, F consistently stated that he did not possess any other identification card except his own identification card, and the photograph submitted by the Defendant as evidentiary material that the Defendant inspected the identification card is a face to confirm what is in the state of the Defendant and F, and it is difficult for the Defendant to easily accept the identification card prior to the order of the restaurant customer (the assumption that the above page was to conduct the identification card).

arrow