logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
arrow
(영문) 전주지방법원 2013. 6. 28. 선고 2013노374 판결
[청소년보호법위반][미간행]
Escopics

Defendant

Appellant. An appellant

Prosecutor

Prosecutor

The next higher rank, the second higher rank, the second higher rank, and the second higher rank.

Defense Counsel

Attorney Kang Jong-cheon (National Election)

Judgment of the lower court

Jeonju District Court Decision 2012No3015 Decided March 28, 2013

Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

The defendant, as the owner of an entertainment drinking house, knew that the non-indicted 1, 2, and 3 was a juvenile, had him/her provide entertainment entertainment services, and sufficient evidence to support this, the court below acquitted the defendant on the ground that there was no proof of the facts charged in this case. The judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. Summary of the facts charged

The Defendant employed Nonindicted 1 (age 16), Nonindicted 2 (age 16), and Nonindicted 3 (age 17), a juvenile, from around 22:00 to 23:00 on May 3, 2012, the Defendant allowed a male customer to enter a guest room where three male customers drink alcoholic beverages, and allowed the customer to sing and singing along with drinking alcoholic beverages. Then, from around 22:30 on May 4, 2012 to around 23:0, the Defendant allowed the above Nonindicted 1, a male guest, to enter the guest room where one male customer drink drinks, and allowed the customer to sing and talk with the above method, and allowed the customer to sing and talk with the above method.

B. Determination

1) According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the court below found the defendant not guilty on the ground that the defendant was not guilty on the ground that the defendant was not guilty on the ground that the defendant's non-indicted 1, 2, and 3 (hereinafter "non-indicted 1, etc.") committed entertainment drinking activity in the entertainment drinking house operated by the defendant, but in light of the various circumstances as stated in its reasoning, it cannot be deemed that there was any circumstance to suspect non-indicted 1, etc. as a juvenile, and that the defendant violated his duty to verify the age for non-indicted 1, etc., and it is difficult to view that the facts charged in this case constitute a case without proof of criminal facts. In light of the records and records, the judgment of the court below

2) As to this, the prosecutor asserts to the effect that, although there were circumstances to suspect Nonindicted 1, etc. as a juvenile, the Defendant failed to take necessary measures to confirm his age, the Defendant ought to be deemed to have employed Nonindicted 1, etc. intentionally, who knew that he was a juvenile or was deprived of his age.

In light of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, it is recognized that the actual face of Nonindicted 5 or Nonindicted 4 who inspected Nonindicted 1, etc.’s resident registration certificate at the Defendant’s request and the photograph on the resident registration certificate appears to be somewhat different (the investigation record 228-229 page).

However, the following circumstances acknowledged by the record of this case, i.e., ① Nonindicted 5’s de facto face to Nonindicted 1, etc.; Nonindicted 1, etc., asked Nonindicted 2, etc. about the reason that they appear to be different from their pictures on the resident registration certificate; ② Where the de facto face differs from the photograph on the resident registration certificate due to increase or decrease in body, age change, and correction of photographs, etc., the Nonindicted 1, etc. were closed, and Nonindicted 1, etc., performed cremation so that they can be seen as similar to the above photograph in order not to indicate that they were juveniles on the above resident registration certificate (in particular, Nonindicted 1 appears to have known that they were similar to the above photograph on the resident registration certificate of Pyeongtaek 1, etc., and, Nonindicted 2, etc., sent out the above list of their names and addresses to Nonindicted 5, etc., and actively recorded them in the above list of juveniles, including Nonindicted 3, 47, and 57-1, etc., who had been aware of their personal identification and address on the above list.

3) Therefore, the prosecutor’s assertion of mistake is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the prosecutor'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 (However, according to Article 25 (1) of the Regulation on Criminal Procedure, each "△△△△△△△" of the three pages 7-9 and four pages 3 of the judgment of the court below ex officio in accordance with Article 25 (1).

Judges Park Jong-won (Presiding Justice)

arrow
심급 사건
- 전주지방법원군산지원 2013.3.28.선고 2012고단3015

본문참조조문

- 형사소송법 제364조 제4항

- 형사소송규칙 제25조 제1항

원심판결

- 전주지방법원 군산지원 2013. 3. 28. 선고 2012고단3015 판결