(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2015.4.9.선고 2014노1398 판결

Prior to the instant case, the Defendant demanded two or more identification cards to be changed to B, and confirmed the age of pictures by comparison and closely, and sold alcoholic beverages. Therefore, the Defendant did not have an intention to sell alcoholic beverages to minors.

2. Determination

A. Article 1 of the Juvenile Protection Act provides that the purpose of the Act is to enable juveniles to grow into the body of sound character by regulating the distribution of drugs, etc. harmful to juveniles and protecting and remedying them from harmful environment (Article 1). Article 2 provides that "drugs and articles harmful to juveniles" are defined as drugs and articles harmful to juveniles, and states alcoholic beverages under the Liquor Tax Act among drugs harmful to juveniles (Article 2 subparagraph 4 Item (a). For this purpose, any person who engages in distribution business of drugs, etc., and any organization and association consisting of such drugs shall autonomously endeavor to protect juveniles by preventing the distribution of drugs, etc. harmful to juveniles, etc. harmful to juveniles (Article 4(2)), and any person who intends to sell, lend, and distribute drugs, etc. harmful to juveniles shall verify the age of the other person (Article 28(3)).

B. Comprehensively considering the relevant provisions of the Juvenile Protection Act, since a business owner, such as a convenience store, etc. that sells drugs harmful to juveniles as seen in the instant convenience store, is responsible for not selling alcoholic beverages to juveniles for the protection of juveniles, if a business owner, such as convenience store, sells alcoholic beverages, he/she shall verify the age of the subject based on a resident registration certificate or evidence with public probative value of age to the extent of age. If there is a doubt that the photograph and actual substance of the resident registration symptoms presented by the subject are different, if a juvenile purchases alcoholic beverages using another person’s resident registration certificate in order to conceal his/her status and age, a business owner is obligated to take additional age verification measures such as making him/her use of other person’s resident registration certificate in detail comparison with his/her resident registration certificate or making him/her open his/her address or resident registration number (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2014Do5173, Jul. 10, 2014).

C. In light of the above legal principles, B at the time of the instant case, as a juvenile at the age of 15, there seems to be considerable reason to suspect B as a juvenile on the land, even if B’s photo attached to the investigation record, even if he appears to be a juvenile on the land, (B) was present as a witness at the lower court, and according to the lower court’s judgment, it was highly probable that B was viewed as a juvenile at the time of the instant case in light of the attitude of testimony, horse speculation, appearance, etc., at the time of the testimony, and the Defendant had four times or more compared B’s photograph and appearance of the resident registration certificate presented by B, and if there is room for deliberation even more detailedly compared B’s photograph and appearance, if there is room for examination ( according to the testimony of B, the Defendant had previously presented his identification card from B before, and “A student is the same as a student, but it should have had B take additional age verification measures such as having his resident registration number or address other than the resident registration number.

D. However, even though there are sufficient circumstances to suspect that the Defendant’s external dog B is a juvenile and the photograph of his/her identification card is different from that of B, the Defendant’s identity from B before.

Inasmuch as a person sells alcoholic beverages to B without presenting his identification card at the time of the instant case and taking additional age verification measures on the ground that only the photograph and appearance were received and the photograph and appearance were comparisond, it is deemed that the Defendant had an intentional intent to sell alcoholic beverages to juveniles. Accordingly, the Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the defendant's appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.