logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 2015.08.13 2014노2958
청소년보호법위반
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. It is true that D, E, F, and G, a misunderstanding of facts, drinks sold by the Defendant from the headline operated by the Defendant at the time of the instant case (hereinafter “instant headline”).

However, in light of the following facts: (a) at the time of the instant case, I, an adult male who is 30 years of age, accompanied with the instant juveniles; (b) in the case of D, the Defendant inspected the identification card and confirmed that he was adult; and (c) in the case of E, he was aware of the fact that he was in a patient uniform and became adult in the patient uniform; and (d) in the case of F, G, D, and E, after entering the said headline, the Defendant did not fully recognize the fact that he had been a juvenile at the time of having performed the said alcohol by deception between the Defendant and the time when he did not confirm it.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous by misunderstanding facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The lower court’s sentence on the Defendant of unreasonable sentencing (the fine of 500,000 won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) In light of the legislative intent of the Juvenile Protection Act, the employer and employees of a business establishment prohibited from accessing juveniles are highly highly liable for not allowing juveniles to enter the business establishment for the protection of juveniles. Thus, the employer and employees of a business establishment prohibited from accessing juveniles should confirm 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 unless there are circumstances that make it difficult for them to doubt juveniles from objectively viewing that they are juveniles. (See Supreme Court Decisions 93Do2914, Jan. 14, 1994; 2002Do2425, Jun. 28, 2002, etc.).

arrow