logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2014.05.22 2013고정3513
청소년보호법위반
Text

A defendant shall be punished by a fine of 500,000 won.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 50,000 won.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is a person who has registered his/her business in the name of his/her spouse D in Suwon-si C and the first floor of Suwon-si and operates his/her he/she in the name of his/her spouse as well as his/her spouse.

A defendant shall not sell drugs harmful to juveniles.

Nevertheless, in August 2013, the Defendant sold alcohol and tobacco equivalent to KRW 5,100,00 in total, without checking the age of F (the age of 17, South) youth at the end of the end of August 2013, and without confirming the age of F (the age of 17, South).

Summary of Evidence

1. Legal statement of witness F;

1. Statement of the person concerned;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to the notification of control reports on public morals business places and matters concerning control of public morals business places;

1. Article 59 subparagraph 6 of the Juvenile Protection Act and Article 28 (1) of the same Act concerning facts constituting an offense, selection of fines;

1. Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act regarding the Defendant and his defense counsel’s argument that the Defendant did not sell alcohol and tobacco to F as stated in the facts constituting the crime, and rather, F is highly likely to purchase alcohol and tobacco at the adjacent convenience store of “G Park Gabball” or at the place where the Defendant was unable to smoke after drinking alcohol. Thus, the Defendant asserts that he is not guilty. However, the Defendant clearly stated that F, a high school student who appears to have no particular interest with the Defendant, has purchased alcohol and tobacco from the Defendant on the date of criminal facts as indicated in the judgment by appearing in this court. Since such statement is consistent after the investigation agency, it is difficult to accept the Defendant’s argument.

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.

arrow