[1] The measures to be taken by the proprietor of the relevant business in a case where there are circumstances to suspect that a person who intends to get sexual intercourse is a juvenile

[2] The case holding that dolusent negligence in the care of juvenile sexual intercourses is recognized

[1] In a case where there are circumstances to suspect that a juvenile is a juvenile on the outer appearance, habiting, or scream of a person who intends to be separated from a sexual intercourse, a person engaged in a female business shall be allowed to be separated from a sexual intercourse only if it is confirmed by identification card or any other reliable method and by which it is not a juvenile

[2] The case holding that dolusent negligence in the care of juvenile sexual intercourses is recognized

[1] Article 24(2), Article 26-2 subparag. 8, and Article 50 subparag. 4 of the Juvenile Protection Act / [2] Article 24(2), Article 26-2 subparag. 8, and Article 50 subparag. 4 of the Juvenile Protection Act

[1] [2] Supreme Court Decision 2001Do3295 decided Aug. 21, 2001 (Gong2001Ha, 2136)

Defendant

Prosecutor

Daegu District Court Decision 2002No243 delivered on July 23, 2002

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Daegu District Court Panel Division.

1. Summary of the facts charged

On May 5, 2001, the Defendant entered the Daegu-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong 116-4 208 room, which was located in the Defendant’s management, with Non-Indicted 1 (the male, the 17 years old at that time) and Non-Indicted 2 (the 17 years old at that time) and stayed together, thereby allowing the juvenile to have sexual intercourse accommodation.

2. The judgment of the court below

The Defendant and Nonindicted 1 and Nonindicted 2 made a statement at the police station as evidence consistent with the facts charged in the instant case. However, it is difficult to recognize that Nonindicted 1 and Nonindicted 2, at the time of entering the female room in the instant case, were not the Defendant, but the Defendant’s husband Nonindicted 3, and the Defendant made a statement at the police station without proper knowledge of the situation at the time. In addition, it is difficult to believe that the Defendant’s statement at the police station was made by Nonindicted 2, who was aware of the minor from the view of the outer appearance at the time of the administration, was hidden. In addition, according to Nonindicted 1 and Nonindicted 2’s statement at the court of first instance where Nonindicted 3 did not see Nonindicted 2 and Nonindicted 2’s statement at the time of entering the female room in the instant case, according to the statement at the police station of Nonindicted 1 and Nonindicted 2, who made it difficult to believe that there was a juvenile due to the appearance or shotning of the Defendant’s management. Therefore, it is also difficult to recognize that the facts charged in the instant case constitute a crime.

3. The judgment of this Court

In this case, the Defendant and Nonindicted 3’s husband and wife resided in the direction room at the entrance of the first floor of the Defendant, and at the time of the instant case, Nonindicted 3 had been working in the entrance room at the entrance of the first floor, and Nonindicted 1 and Nonindicted 2 had been aware of their congested facts during the police’s inspection for arresting the designated recipient after entering the brigade. Nonindicted 1 and Nonindicted 2 stated that, at the police, Nonindicted 1 and Nonindicted 2 did not appear to have been aware of their age or without confirming identification cards, upon entering the brigade, they did not appear to have known both Nonindicted 1 and Nonindicted 2 that they were adults, and the Defendant entered the body of Nonindicted 3 and Nonindicted 3. However, when Nonindicted 1 and Nonindicted 2 were notified of a summary order of KRW 2 million, Nonindicted 1 and Nonindicted 2 did not appear to have known that Nonindicted 3 did not appear to have been aware of their age, and that Nonindicted 3 did not appear to have been aware of their testimony during the first instance trial.

However, in light of the fact that Nonindicted 1 and Nonindicted 2 made a false statement in the police without knowing the circumstances in which they were in the brigade and they were living together with the Defendant and Nonindicted 3 as their husband and wife, it is difficult to obtain the Defendant’s vindication that the Defendant and Nonindicted 3 were living together in the brigade. In addition, if Nonindicted 2 appears to have his age, and there was a statement in Nonindicted 1 and Nonindicted 2’s court of first instance that Nonindicted 3 went into the court of first instance since they could no longer see it, they did not have any reason different from the fact when they make a statement in the police, and it is difficult to obtain the background leading up to the reversal of that statement only after the lapse of more than three months after the occurrence of the instant case.

On the other hand, when there are circumstances to suspect that a juvenile is a juvenile on the outer appearance, habitation, or scam of the person who intends to be sexual intercourse, etc., the person engaged in the sexual intercourse should confirm whether the juvenile is a juvenile by identification card or any other reliable method and allow the sexual intercourse only if it is confirmed that the juvenile is not a juvenile (see Supreme Court Decision 2001Do3295, Aug. 21, 2001). However, Nonindicted 1 and Nonindicted 2 were the three-year students at high school at the time of the instant case, and Nonindicted 2 were particularly ageed. As such, Nonindicted 3 should have confirmed whether the juvenile was a juvenile by identification card or any other reliable method when Nonindicted 1 and Nonindicted 2 intend to enter the female house together. Accordingly, if Nonindicted 3 did not at all confirm and permitted the sexual intercourse between Nonindicted 1 and Nonindicted 2 without permission, it should be deemed that there was an intention to do so about the sexual intercourse at least.

Nevertheless, the court below erred in the misapprehension of the rules of evidence that the court below rejected all statements made by the defendant, Nonindicted 1, and Nonindicted 2 in the police on the basis of the defendant's vindication and testimony at the first instance court of both Nonindicted 1 and Nonindicted 2, which are difficult to easily understand, and determined that the facts charged in this case constitute a case where there is no proof of criminal facts, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment. The grounds

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the court below shall be reversed and the case shall be remanded to the court below.

Justices Zwon (Presiding Justice)