The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

1. In the facts charged, the Defendant employed a juvenile E (n, 16 years of age), F (n, 16 years of age), and G (n, 17 years of age) from around 22:00 to 23:00 on May 3, 2012, the Defendant: (a) let a male customer enter a guest room with three male customers drinking alcohol; (b) let the guest drink drink and talk with drinking alcohol; and (c) from around 2:30 to 23:0 on May 4, 2012, the Defendant allowed the above male passenger E to enter a guest room with drinking alcohol; and (d) let the guest guest drink enter the guest room with drinking alcohol; and (e) let the guest guest drink enter the guest room with drinking alcohol, from around 22:30 to 23:30 on May 4, 2012.

Accordingly, the defendant, for the purpose of profit-making, had a juvenile drink with a customer by drinking alcohol, singing or dancing, etc.

2. As to the determination, the Defendant asserted to the effect that the above people were not aware of the fact that they were juveniles, since the identification card possessed by E, F, and G (hereinafter “E”) was confirmed.

Article 26-2 subparag. 2 of the Juvenile Protection Act provides that no one shall allow a juvenile to drink with a customer for profit or to provide entertainment to the customer by singing or dancing, etc. Thus, considering that the legislative purport of the above Act is to protect the juvenile from various harmful environments including harmful acts so that the juvenile can grow into a sound character, even though the duty of age verification is not expressly provided for in Article 24(2) of the same Act and Article 20(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act with respect to the act of compelling the juvenile to provide entertainment to the juvenile, the juvenile as the owner or employee of the entertainment drinking house, which is a harmful business establishment, shall provide entertainment to the juvenile.