Defendant shall be punished by a fine of two million won.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant is a person who operates the D convenience store in Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government.

No one shall sell drugs harmful to juveniles to juveniles.

Nevertheless, around 20:05 on November 16, 2015, the Defendant sold tobacco to Juvenile E (16, n, n) and F (18 tax, n, n) for 9,00 won, which is a juvenile harmful tobacco.

Summary of Evidence

1. Each legal statement of witness E and F;

1. Determination on the Defendant’s assertion of tobacco purchase receipt

1. The defendant's assertion that the sale of tobacco to E was true, but there was an identification card presented by E several times prior to that, and because E was believed to be an adult, there was no intention to sell tobacco to the juvenile.

2. In light of the legislative purpose of the Juvenile Protection Act, since a business owner, such as a convenience store, etc. that sells harmful drugs to juveniles, is responsible for not selling harmful drugs to juveniles. Thus, in cases where a business owner, such as convenience store, sells harmful drugs to juveniles, he/she shall verify the age of the juvenile on the basis of a resident registration certificate or evidence of public probative value of age to the extent similar to that of his/her resident registration certificate, and if there is a doubt that the photograph and actual substance on the resident registration certificate presented by the person concerned are different from that on the resident registration certificate, if he/she purchases alcoholic beverages, tobacco, etc. using another person's resident registration certificate to conceal his/her identity and age, he/she is obligated to take additional age verification measures such as making a detailed comparison of his/her resident registration certificate with his/her photograph and material on the resident registration certificate, or leaving his/her address or resident

In other words, “E” (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Do8385, Sept. 27, 2013). Prior to the instant case, “E” refers to tobacco from the Defendant.