logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2014.10.7.선고 2014고정520 판결
청소년보호법위반
Cases

2014False 520 Violation of the Juvenile Protection Act

Defendant

A

Prosecutor

He/she shall proceed to a public trial, such as a court of Grade 5, a court of first instance.

Defense Counsel

Attorney B (Korean National Assembly)

Imposition of Judgment

October 7, 2014

Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,500,000. Where the Defendant fails to pay the above fine, the Defendant shall be confined in the workhouse for a period calculated by converting KRW 100,000 into one day.

In order to order the provisional payment of an amount equivalent to the above fine.

Reasons

Criminal facts

On October 9, 2013, the Defendant was a person operating the D convenience points in Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and around October 10:14, 2013, at the above convenience store, the Defendant sold five alcoholic beverages (KGB Montreal Bomond 3 diseases, knife 1 diseases, knife 1 diseases, knife 1 diseases) to E (15 years old), a juvenile harmful drug.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement of the accused in the second protocol of trial;

1. Legal statement of witness E;

1. A written statement;

Application of Statutes

1. Article relevant to the facts constituting an offense and the selection of punishment;

Article 58 Subparag. 3 and Article 28(1) of the Juvenile Protection Act; Selection of fines

1. Detention in a workhouse;

Articles 70 and 69(2) of the Criminal Act

1. Order of provisional payment;

Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

Judgment on the argument of the defendant and defense counsel

The defendant and the defense counsel held that they sold alcoholic beverages without confirming identification cards to E on the date stated in the facts charged. However, they held three times prior to the purchase of alcoholic beverages at the convenience store operated by the defendant, and they sold alcoholic beverages because they believed to be adults and did not confirm identification cards. Thus, they did not intend to violate the Juvenile Protection Act.

Article 28(1) of the Juvenile Protection Act provides that "no person shall sell, lend, distribute (including cases of selling, lending, or distributing drugs harmful to juveniles through an automatic vending machine sales device) or provide them free of charge," and Article 28(3) provides that "any person who intends to sell, lease, or distribute drugs harmful to juveniles shall verify the age of the other party." As such, a person who sells alcoholic beverages is objectively responsible for not selling alcoholic beverages to juveniles for the protection of juveniles, barring any circumstances that make it difficult to doubt the other party as a juvenile, the other party to the age group which is likely to be juvenile, has the duty of care to ask the other party to present resident registration certificates or other identification cards of public probative value to verify the age. Therefore, if the other party sells alcoholic beverages to him/her without confirming the fact that he/she is a juvenile, then the other party should be deemed to have been aware of the above fact that he/she was aware of the fact that he/she was a juvenile, and the other party had purchased the above e-mail or identification card before 2039 days before the aforementioned testimony was lawfully purchased by the court.

Therefore, the above assertion by the accused and the defense counsel is not accepted on different premise.

Judges

Judges Lee Jong-sung

arrow