logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 제주지방법원 2015.07.23 2015노154
청소년보호법위반
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. At the first time of misunderstanding of facts, an adult female issued an order to finite and alcohol, and thus, he/she had previously conducted finite and alcohol to a person who inspected his/her identification card, but thereafter delivered it.

In addition, the police have been under the control of the police who did not confirm because the police did not have to be confirmed even though it was required to present an identification card.

B. Even if a person is guilty of an unreasonable sentencing decision, the lower court’s sentence (700,000 won of a fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following circumstances that can be acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below on the assertion of mistake of facts, the defendant can find the fact that the defendant did not confirm the age of three male and female juveniles as stated in the judgment of the court below and provided them with alcohol as drugs harmful to juveniles.

① According to each written statement about E, G, and H that the Defendant drinks at the Defendant’s store at the time, all the statements indicate that “the Defendant did not inspect the identification card.”

In particular, the above G is an adult female who inspected the identification card of the defendant, and even based on the statement of G, it did not examine the identification card on the same day.

② In the police investigation, the Defendant also stated that “A woman, who was an adult female, issued an order to Kin and Sobin to Kin and Sobin one disease, 15 minutes thereafter, 2, and 15 minutes thereafter, asked whether he/she is a relative, and thus, he/she was unable to examine his/her daily identification card only because he/she was a bad, and the first woman was previously inspecting his/her identification card.”

③ As properly pointed out by the lower court, the Defendant asserted that the police exercised control over the order of other customers, which was the time when he tried to examine the identification card of the juveniles later. This is also based on such a statement.

arrow