[1] The meaning of "juvenile sexual intercourse accommodation" under Article 26-2 subparagraph 8 of the Juvenile Protection Act

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

[1] Article 26-2 subparag. 8 of the Juvenile Protection Act provides that no one shall conduct a business which disturbs public morals, such as making the juveniles be accommodated in the same sex, or providing a place for such business". Considering that the legislative purport of the above Act is to protect the juveniles from various harmful acts so that the juveniles grow into healthy personality by protecting them from harmful acts, "a person living in the same sex" under the above Act is sufficient for the juveniles of both men and women, and it does not necessarily require both men and women to be juveniles.

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

[1] 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, Article 16 and Article 20(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Juvenile Protection Act

Defendant

Defendant

Seoul District Court Decision 2001No1936 delivered on June 1, 2001

The appeal is dismissed.

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

Article 26-2 subparag. 8 of the Juvenile Protection Act provides that no person shall engage in any business which disturbs public morals, such as having juveniles be accommodated in the same sex, or providing a place for such business". Considering that the legislative purport of the above Act is to protect juveniles from various harmful acts so that juveniles can grow into healthy personality by protecting them from various harmful acts, "the family register register register register register register register register register register register register register register register register register register register register register register register register register register register register register register register register register register register register register register register register register register register register register register register register register register register register register register register register register register register register register register register

In the same purport, the court below held that the defendant's act of having the defendant accommodated in guest rooms with adult male and female people constitutes Article 26-2 subparagraph 8 of the Juvenile Protection Act. The judgment of the court below is just, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to juvenile sexual intercourses under the Juvenile Protection Act.

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

The court below found on May 23, 200 that: (a) the defendant, who was engaged in a female-affiliated business, received a minor’s non-indicted 1 (the age of 18) and non-indicted 2 (the age of 36), as a customer on May 23, 200, and administered the minor’s 13,000 won; (b) the defendant had dolusent intent to make the juvenile be able to have sexual intercourse; and (c) Non-indicted 1 and Non-indicted 2 had been accommodated for the purpose of sexual intercourse; and (d) the defendant was guilty of the facts charged that the defendant had been engaged in a juvenile sexual intercourse business.

In light of the legislative purport of the Juvenile Protection Act and the purport of prohibiting juvenile sexual intercourse business, even though the duty of age verification under Article 24(2) of the same Act and Article 16 and Article 20(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act does not explicitly provide for female sexual intercourse with regard to female sexual intercourse, if there are circumstances to suspect that a female sexual intercourse is a juvenile due to his/her appearance or rent, etc., the female sexual intercourse should be permitted only if it is confirmed by identification card or any other reliable method and the juvenile is confirmed to be not a juvenile. In such a case, if the family sexual intercourse was permitted only verbally after hearing the horses that did not possess identification card, but only after confirming the age of the female sexual intercourse, if the family sexual intercourse was allowed by confirming the age of the female sexual intercourse, the judgment of the court below that the defendant was not guilty at least is justified, and there is no error in finding facts.

In addition, as long as the defendant was familiar with the non-indicted 1 and the non-indicted 2 who was found for the purpose of sexual intercourse, he cannot be exempted from the criminal liability for allowing the juvenile to have sexual intercourse with the fact that he did not leave the guest room for a considerable period of time and did not have sexual intercourse. Thus, the judgment of the court below is not erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles, as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.

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

Justices Yoon Jae-sik (Presiding Justice)