logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2014.09.19 2014노819
청소년보호법위반
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the speech and behavior of the E at the time of the instant case, the Defendant was unable to recognize that he was a juvenile, and there was no intention to commit the crime.

B. The sentence imposed by the court below on the grounds of unreasonable sentencing (the fine of 300,000 won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In light of the contents and purport of the Juvenile Protection Act and the Enforcement Decree thereof, a person who sells alcoholic beverages, etc. is given a very strict responsibility not to sell alcoholic beverages to juveniles for the protection of juveniles.

As such, the other party has a duty of care to demand the other party to present his/her resident registration certificate or other identification card with public probative value and to verify his/her age, unless it appears that the other party is an adult on the external basis.

In addition, if the other party neglected to perform such duty of care and sold alcoholic beverages, etc. to him/her without confirming the fact that he/she is a juvenile, the negligence of the crime of violation of the Juvenile Protection Act due to the violation of the above legal provisions shall be recognized.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2003Do8039 Decided April 23, 2004, etc.). The evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the following circumstances acknowledged by the court below, i.e., ① on August 1998, E, who was born in August 23, 2018, entered the restaurant of this case operated by the defendant, with three young children and three young children, etc. on February 12, 2014. The defendant did not request the plaintiff to present identification card and confirm whether he is a juvenile. ② E, as the age of a middle student at the time of the instant case, is hard to find that he is a juvenile, and E, as alleged by the defendant, is the age of 21 years, and even if he is divided into an adult customer with other theme, he was divided into two youngs.

arrow