The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Summary of Reasons for appeal

A. In fact, the Defendant, by asking the age of the juveniles who had been customers to “C”, was not active and provided alcoholic beverages such as liquor, etc., so the Defendant did not have an intention to sell alcoholic beverages to juveniles.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the facts charged of this case.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (an amount of KRW 500,000) is too unreasonable.

Judgment

A. Fact misunderstanding 1) Article 26 (1) of the Juvenile Protection Act provides that no person shall sell harmful drugs, etc. to juveniles, and Article 20 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provides that "any person who intends to sell or rent harmful drugs, etc. to juveniles pursuant to Article 26 (1) of the Act shall verify the age of the other party." In light of the content of the above provision and the legislative purport of the Juvenile Protection Act, the business owner and employees of a business establishment that sells harmful drugs, etc. shall be strictly responsible for complying with the above provision for the protection of juveniles, barring special circumstances where it is objectively difficult to doubt that the person is a juvenile, barring special circumstances where the person is objectively suspected of being a juvenile, the age of the person should be confirmed based on his resident registration certificate or evidence with public probative value of age equivalent thereto, and if the business owner and employees do not take any measures to confirm age in violation of the duty to verify age, the court below's decision that the above business owner and employees were found to be a violation of the Juvenile Protection Act.