[1] Whether the provisions of the former Act on Sound Records, Video Products and Game Software, which set the age of 18 years for access limit to the loss of a video establishment, constitute "special provisions allowing juveniles to enter as an exception to acts violating the Juvenile Protection Act" under Article 19 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Juvenile Protection Act (negative)

[2] The case holding that the above disposition of imposition was unlawful on the ground that there was a justifiable ground for not being negligent in neglecting the duty of prohibition on access to the juvenile under the Juvenile Protection Act, where the person who has been aged between 18 and 19 was subject to the disposition of imposition of penalty under the Juvenile Protection Act against the person who has been admitted to the juvenile who has been aged between 18 and 19

[1] Article 19 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Juvenile Protection Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 17350 of Aug. 25, 2001) provides that the first Act enacted by Act No. 5297 of Mar. 7, 1997 has been maintained from the time when the age of the juvenile was determined to be under 18 years of age, and its history, contents and purport of delegation, etc. In light of the above provision, if the juvenile is allowed to enter with a person with parental authority, etc. pursuant to the provision of Article 24(3) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Juvenile Protection Act, if other Acts and subordinate statutes allow access with a person with parental authority, etc., it shall be governed by the provision of other special provisions, for example, the restriction on hours of entrance, persons with parental authority, etc., and the method of confirmation among those given to the owner of the business and employees, and it shall not be deemed that the above provision is under 0-13 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Juvenile Protection Act, and it shall not be under the age of 10.

[2] The case holding that the above imposition of the imposition of the imposition of the imposition of the imposition of the imposition of the imposition of the imposition of the imposition of the imposition of the imposition of the imposition of the imposition of the imposition of the imposition of the imposition of the imposition of the imposition of the imposition of the penalty under the Juvenile Protection Act, which is the punitive administrative disposition, is unlawful on the ground that the violator believed that the above act was permitted by the relevant law due to confusion in interpretation and application of the imposition of the imposition of the imposition of the imposition of the imposition of the imposition of the imposition of the said imposition

[1] Article 2 subparag. 1, Articles 6, 24(2) and (3) of the former Juvenile Protection Act (Amended by Act No. 6479, May 24, 2001); Article 19 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Juvenile Protection Act (Amended by Presidential Decree No. 17350, Aug. 25, 2001); Article 8 subparag. 3 and 5 of the former Sound Records, Video Products and Game Software Act (Amended by Act No. 6473, May 24, 2001); Article 14 [Attachment 1] subparag. 2(c) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Juvenile Protection Act (Amended by Presidential Decree No. 17395, Oct. 20, 201); Article 14 [Attachment 2] subparag. 14 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Juvenile Protection Act (Amended by Act No. 17395, Oct. 24, 2001); Article 28 subparag. 14(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Juvenile Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 2001Do4077 decided May 17, 2002 (Gong2002Ha, 1468) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 92Nu2936, 2943 decided October 23, 1992 (Gong1992, 3321) Supreme Court Decision 95Nu14602 decided May 16, 1997 (Gong197Sang, 1784) (Gong200Ha, 1540) decided May 26, 2000

Plaintiff

Head of Daegu Metropolitan City Central Government

Daegu High Court Decision 2001Nu60 decided May 4, 2001

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

Article 24 (3) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Juvenile Protection Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 17350, Aug. 25, 2001; hereinafter referred to as the "former Enforcement Decree of the Juvenile Protection Act") provides that "where juveniles are accompanied by persons with parental rights, etc., they shall be allowed to enter and leave the same under the conditions as prescribed by Presidential Decree." Article 19 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Juvenile Protection Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 17350, Aug. 25, 200; hereinafter referred to as the "former Enforcement Decree of the Juvenile Protection Act") provides that "where juveniles are accompanied by persons with parental rights, etc., under other Acts and subordinate statutes, the former Enforcement Decree of the Juvenile Protection Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 1065, Feb. 5, 199) provides that "where the former Enforcement Decree of the Juvenile Protection Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 1981, Feb. 1, 2007)" shall be interpreted as "where juveniles are allowed to enter and leave the Act No. 97.

However, Article 19 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Juvenile Protection Act (amended by Act No. 5297 of Mar. 7, 1997) is a provision that has been maintained from the time when the age of juveniles was determined to be less than 18 years, and its history, contents, and purport of delegation. This provision is a provision that a juvenile is allowed to enter if he is accompanied by a person with parental authority, etc. pursuant to Article 24(3) of the former Enforcement Decree, but if other Acts and subordinate statutes provide that access can be allowed if he is accompanied by a person with parental authority, he/she shall comply with other special provisions, for example, the limitation of hours for admission, the scope of persons with parental authority, and the method of confirmation among those given by the person with parental authority in cases where access is permitted, and there is no special provision that the above provision should be applied to the effect that a person under the former Enforcement Decree of the Juvenile Protection Act should not be deemed to have been permitted to enter and leave, and therefore, the above provision should not be deemed to be unlawful for a person under Article 8(1) of the former Enforcement Decree.

However, in the event that the act of imposing a penalty surcharge under the Juvenile Protection Act, which is a disciplinary administrative disposition, causes the same appearance as that of the juvenile under the same Act, and confusion in its interpretation and application, etc. is believed to be permitted by the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes. As such, if there are justifiable grounds for believing that such act was committed, it shall not be imposed if it is not attributable to the violator's neglect of duty (see Supreme Court Decision 98Du5972 delivered on May 26, 200). Thus, Article 2 subparag. 1 of the former Juvenile Act provides that the act of using a video product under the same age of 18 and below 19 years should be prohibited from entering and leaving the video product under the same Act, and that the act of using the video product under the same age of 19 years should be prohibited from entering and leaving the video product under the same Act, and that the act of using the video product under the former Act constitutes a legitimate act of using the video product under the same age of 18 years, such as the act of using the video product under the same Act.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Jae-in (Presiding Justice)