logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원 순천지원 2017.05.19 2016고정422
청소년보호법위반
Text

The defendant shall be innocent.

Reasons

1. No person who is the summary of the facts charged shall engage in business activities that disturb public morals, such as allowing juveniles to sleep in the same sex, or provide a place for such business activities;

Nevertheless, around June 6, 2016, around 15:10, the Defendant provided a place for sexual intercourse with E (18 years) and juvenile F (16 years old) by allowing the Defendant to use the above 501 fee for 20,000 Maurel 501.

2. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by each evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court, the evidence alone submitted by the prosecutor alone was proven to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt as to the instant facts charged.

It is difficult to see, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

A. Article 58 Subparag. 5 and Article 30 Subparag. 8 of the Juvenile Protection Act punishing the so-called act of providing a place where male and female juveniles are accommodated (the so-called act harmful to juveniles).

However, there is no duty to require the proprietor of a lodging establishment to verify whether the proprietor of a lodging establishment is a juvenile (Article 29(3) of the Juvenile Protection Act amended by Act No. 1446, Dec. 20, 2016; Article 29(3) of the same Act provides for the duty to require the proprietor of a lodging business to verify the age of the proprietor of a lodging establishment. This is different from the duty to verify the other party’s age in the case of selling drugs harmful to juveniles, such as alcohol or tobacco, and selling drugs harmful to juveniles, such as alcoholic beverages, tobacco, etc., and restricting the employment of juveniles.

B. In the instant case, it is recognized that the Defendant, at the time indicated in the facts charged, carried out a golf screen run in a nearby screen and did not run the telecom. As long as the Defendant did not have the above obligation, the recognition of the facts charged was dolusent.

It shall not be readily concluded.

3.

arrow