logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2018.08.30 2018노131
청소년보호법위반
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding the facts and making the sentencing unfair) of the Defendant’s defense counsel’s written opinion presented on July 3, 2018 shall be examined to the extent that the grounds for appeal specified in the reasons for appeal are supplemented.

A. The Defendant, who is a minor, did not sell alcohol to E, and even if so, sold it.

Even if there was no intention, there was no intention.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (one million won in penalty) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) The lower court determined that, based on the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the Defendant intentionally sold 3,000cck of juvenile harmful drugs to E, a juvenile, on the basis of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor.

2) The “act of selling alcoholic beverages to juveniles” under Article 51 subparag. 8 of the Juvenile Protection Act refers to the act of offering alcoholic beverages to juveniles for a fee, and the act of providing alcoholic beverages to juveniles.

For the purpose of doing so, a juvenile must be in the actual condition of drinking or drinking alcohol (see Supreme Court Decisions 2008Do3211, Jul. 24, 2008). In light of the legislative purport of the Juvenile Protection Act, the proprietor and the employee of a juvenile establishment prohibited from having access to the juvenile are very heavy responsibility for not allowing the employer and the employee to enter the establishment to protect the juvenile. Thus, the employer and the employee of the establishment prohibited from having access to the juvenile to the juvenile are obliged to verify the age of the juvenile based on the resident registration certificate or evidence with public probative value of age to the degree of age equivalent to that of the juvenile, unless there are circumstances where it is objectively difficult to doubt the person who has access to the establishment. (See Supreme Court Decisions 93Do2914, Jan. 14, 1994; 2002Do2425, Jun. 28, 2002).

arrow