logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원 부천지원 2014.01.15 2013고정999
청소년보호법위반
Text

A defendant shall be punished by a fine of 500,000 won.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 50,000 won.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant is a person who operates the “Djuk” located in Seocheon-si, Nowon-gu, Seoul.

No one shall sell, lend or distribute drugs harmful to juveniles, etc. to juveniles.

Nevertheless, on February 23, 2013, the Defendant sold a total of KRW 27,000,000, including No. 4 disease, to E (the 16th, South) and F (the 16th, South) who was found in the above establishment on February 9, 2013, without verifying the age and identification card.

Summary of Evidence

1. Legal statement of witness F;

1. Each police statement to G and E;

1. On-site photographs and the claim by the Defendant of the receipt, the Defendant asserted that the Defendant cannot be held liable for the sale of drugs harmful to juveniles since H, who is an employee of the DNA store, verified the identification card against G, E, and F.

First, in light of the following facts: (a) G was examined to prepare a written statement that the Defendant or H did not verify his/her identification card at the first investigative agency; (b) H was required to verify three identification cards at the investigative agency; (c) E/F was under contact with G and entered the D main points in sequence; and (d) two infinites had already been engaged in drinking with G; and (c) if H was simultaneously verified three in the same manner, it shall be deemed to have been verified as two infinites name in G and name, and witness F and I made a statement to the effect corresponding thereto in the court. In light of the fact that H appears to have verified his/her identification card with respect to G, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this part of the facts charged, the Defendant’s assertion on the part of G is reasonable.

Next, we examine E and F, and described in the investigative agency and this court that “H did not confirm his identity card”, “E was asked to conduct an inspection of his identification card,” and “E was also stated in the investigative agency that E did not verify his identification card,” and in the above.

arrow