Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 700,000.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, the amount of KRW 100,000 shall be paid.

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant is an employee of the “Csing shop” on the first floor below the Busan Jin-gu B, Busan.

The above "Csing shop" is a business establishment banned from allowing access by and employing juveniles, and the employees of the business establishment banned from access by and employing juveniles should verify the age of visitors and allow juveniles to not access the business establishment.

Nevertheless, on October 10, 2017, the Defendant had the said juvenile enter the said juvenile without verifying the age of the said juvenile D ( South, 17 years old) who worked at the said “C singing shop” at the said main place.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of the witness D;

1. A protocol concerning the examination of partially the accused by the prosecution;

1. Part of the statement made by the police with regard to D;

1. Notification of detection of business entities violating laws;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to investigation reports (including net 4 times, business registration certificates);

1. Relevant Acts concerning facts constituting an offense and Articles 59 subparagraph 8 and 29 (2) of the Juvenile Protection Act (Punishment of a penalty);

1. The defendant and the defense counsel found guilty of Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act and Article 79(2) of the Act on the Attraction of the Nowon-gu Station. The defendant and the defense counsel asserted that the defendant and the defense counsel, as a result of confirming the identity card presented by D, they only known to adults, and they are waiting in order to determine whether to employ them. Thus, the "entry" cannot be deemed to be "entry" under

According to evidence, the defendant only confirmed that he was "not a student" to a juvenile D, who was working, and entered to work without verifying the age of D with a public identification card.

Even based on the Defendant’s assertion, it was confirmed that the Defendant was not a juvenile with beliefing only that the Defendant had confirmed the identity of D only on the cell phone that was shown twice before the instant case, or that the “name was changed” only on the basis of the name of D and another name.