Whether the willful negligence of the crime of violating the Juvenile Protection Act is recognized in a case where a juvenile enters the relevant establishment by failing to take the measures for identifying the age and the content of the duty to verify the age of the person who enters the establishment where the juvenile is prohibited from entering the establishment (affirmative)

Article 24(2) and Article 51 subparag. 7 of the Juvenile Protection Act

Supreme Court Decision 93Do2914 delivered on January 14, 1994 (Gong1994Sang, 754) Supreme Court Decision 2002Do2425 Delivered on June 28, 2002 (Gong2002Ha, 1896) Supreme Court Decision 2003Do8039 Delivered on April 23, 2004

Defendant

Defendant

Suwon District Court Decision 2007No593 decided August 23, 2007

The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

A juvenile is still under the responsibility of families, society, and the state for the mature maturity of the juvenile. As to whether to define a person of age as a juvenile, a broad legislative discretion is entrusted to the juvenile. Therefore, even if the Juvenile Protection Act regulates a person of less than 19 years of age as a juvenile and regulates the business owner of a business establishment harmful to the juvenile to prevent him/her from accessing an environment harmful to the juvenile or from allowing him/her to enter the environment to protect him/her, it cannot be said that it infringes on the right to equality or the right to pursue happiness of the business owner of a business establishment harmful to the juvenile.

In addition, in light of the legislative intent of the Juvenile Protection Act, the employers and employees of establishments banned from allowing juveniles to access such establishments are highly highly responsible for not allowing them to access such establishments for the protection of juveniles. Thus, the employers and employees of establishments banned from allowing juveniles to access such establishments should verify the age of juveniles based on resident registration certificates or evidence with public probative value of age to the age group that is likely to be juveniles objectively, unless there are any circumstances that make it difficult to find them as juveniles, and (see Supreme Court Decisions 93Do2914, Jan. 14, 1994; 2002Do2425, Jun. 28, 2002; 2002Do2425, etc.). Thus, barring any special circumstances, if juveniles access the establishments, the employers and employees of such establishments are not in violation of their duty to verify their age and did not take any measures to confirm their age, and thus, they are deemed to have committed intentional violations of the Juvenile Protection Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Do304.

In light of these legal principles and records, insofar as Non-Indicted 1, who is the defendant or his employee, did not confirm the age of Non-Indicted 2, a juvenile, based on evidence of public probative value, it is inevitable to recognize dolusence as mentioned above, and it is not different on the ground that Non-Indicted 1 did not properly notify the defendant of the matters concerning the confirmation of age of Non-Indicted 2. Thus, the court below's finding the defendant guilty of the crime of this case in the same purport is just, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence, such as misapprehension of legal principles, or violation of the Constitution.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Park Si-hwan (Presiding Justice)