The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In the event of misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles, three female juveniles who entered a store operated by the Defendant at the time of the instant case (hereinafter “instant juveniles”) have the appearance that could be mistaken for adults, such as conducting a serious cremation, etc., and the Defendant could not be recognized as juveniles.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which convicted the defendant without the intention of violating the Juvenile Protection Act is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (the fine of KRW 500,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The former Juvenile Protection Act (amended by Act No. 15913, Dec. 11, 2018) prohibits a juvenile from selling harmful drugs, such as alcoholic beverages, etc., and imposes an obligation on a person who intends to sell harmful drugs, etc., to verify the other party’s age.

(Article 28(1) and (3). In light of the content of the above provision and the legislative intent of the Juvenile Protection Act, the proprietor and employees of a business establishment that sells harmful drugs to juveniles are granted a strict liability to comply with the above provision for the protection of juveniles.

Therefore, unless there is any circumstance that it is objectively difficult to doubt the person as a juvenile, the person's age should be confirmed based on resident registration certificates or evidence with public probative value of age to the extent similar to that of the person who entered the age group which is likely to be a juvenile.

If a business owner or employee did not take any measures to confirm the age in violation of the duty to verify the age, barring any special circumstance, the Supreme Court sentenced the business owner or employee to be at least dolusent intent to commit a crime of violation of the Juvenile Protection Act due to a violation of the said law.