The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The judgment of the first instance.

1. The summary of the case and the facts premised on the case

A. The summary of the instant case is an appeal suit seeking the revocation of the Defendant’s disposition of imposition of penalty surcharge on the ground that the Plaintiff, a food service business operator, provided alcoholic beverages to juveniles under the Food Sanitation Act, alleged that the Defendant did not meet the requirements for disposition or abused discretion.

The judgment of the first instance dismissed the plaintiff's claim, and the plaintiff appealed against it.

[Attachment of the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes]

B. The premise fact-finding 【Evidence 【C’s general restaurant operation with the trade name of “C” in Yangcheon-gu Seoul, 1-1, 2, A2, 4, 5, 6, 8, B, 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6 of A-1-1-2, and the purport of the entire pleadings (i.e., the Plaintiff was controlled by the police on April 6, 2013 on the ground that the Plaintiff sold alcoholic beverages, such as beer, to juveniles D and E, while running the general restaurant business in Yangcheon-gu Seoul.

On May 27, 2013, the Luxembourg Prosecutor confirmed that the Plaintiff sold alcoholic beverages to the Plaintiff, but the Plaintiff confirmed the resident registration number, but suspended the indictment by taking into account the circumstances in which the juvenile was his/her resident registration number as if he/she were adult.

Article 82 of the former Food Sanitation Act and Articles 53 and 54 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Food Sanitation Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 26180, Mar. 30, 2015) on the ground that the Plaintiff provided alcoholic beverages to juveniles in violation of Article 44 of the former Food Sanitation Act (amended by Act No. 1327, Mar. 27, 2015) on September 12, 2013, the Defendant imposed a penalty surcharge of KRW 9 million in lieu of the business suspension 45 days on the Plaintiff.

2. Issues of the instant case

A. Whether the Plaintiff violated a business operator’s duty to observe (Prohibition of Provision to Juveniles)

B. Whether the defendant's discretionary power is deviates or abused

3. The judgment of this Court

A. Whether the Plaintiff violated the requirements of business operators (the Defendant’s assertion) [the Defendant’s assertion], the Defendant provided liquor to juveniles.