logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 의정부지방법원 2017.11.01 2017노2010
청소년보호법위반
Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant is innocent. The summary of this judgment shall be notified publicly.

Reasons

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles) the Defendant sold alcoholic beverages to adults at the time of the instant case. Since the Defendant later joined the alcoholic beverages as a juvenile E and drinks the alcoholic beverages ordered by the said adults, the Defendant sold alcoholic beverages to juveniles.

shall not be deemed to exist.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous by misapprehending the legal principles or affecting the conclusion of judgment.

2. The facts charged and the judgment of the court below

A. The Defendant is a person who operates “D main points” in the Guri-si, Guri-si, the Defendant of the instant charges.

No one shall sell drugs, etc. harmful to juveniles to juveniles.

Nevertheless, on August 30, 2016, the Defendant sold to E (n, female, 17 years of age) a juvenile harmful drug at KRW 8,000.

B. The lower court determined as follows: (a) at the time of the instant case, it stated in the court below’s reasoning that “E, a juvenile, “at the time of the instant case, did not have visited the restaurant, but was inside the Defendant through the male-gu, male-gu, and sexual intercourses with the Defendant. On the day of the instant case, the day of the instant case, the Defendant did not request identification card from the Defendant, but did not present identification card; (b) the above E arrived at around 21:20 minutes after arrival in the instant restaurant, and was dispatched after receiving a 112 report from the police officer from around 21:40, the Defendant was aware of the fact that he continued to sit in the instant restaurant as above, and was aware of the fact that he had sold it.” (c) At around 21:20 minutes after the arrival of the instant restaurant, the Defendant was aware of the fact that he had been able to be aware of the fact that he had sold it.

In light of this case.

arrow