[1] The meaning of "employment" under Article 24 (1) of the Juvenile Protection Act

[2] The case affirming the court below's decision that, in case where the juvenile 's so-called 's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's 'ss 'ss 'ss 'ss 'ss 'ss 's 'sss '

[1] According to the provisions of Article 24(1) of the Juvenile Protection Act, each proprietor of a singing practice room or an entertainment drinking house which is a business establishment harmful to juveniles is unable to employ a juvenile as a entertainment loan. For a woman's employment, it includes a case where he receives a part-time wage.

[2] The case affirming the court below's decision that, in case where the juvenile 's so-called 's 's pocketet' raises customers' interest in singing practice rooms or entertainment taverns and receives part-time remunerations, the business owner deemed the juvenile as a part-time entertainment loan and applied the business owner to the crime of violating the Juvenile Protection Act

[1] Article 24(1) of the Juvenile Protection Act / [2] Article 24(1) and Article 50 subparag. 2 of the Juvenile Protection Act

Defendant 1 and one other

Defendants

Public-service Advocates Nawon

Daegu District Court Decision 2004No4696 Decided May 19, 2005

All appeals are dismissed.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to the provisions of Article 24 (1) of the Juvenile Protection Act, each proprietor of a singing practice room business which is a business establishment harmful to juveniles or an entertainment drinking house shall not employ juveniles as a entertainment loan, and in the case where the so-called tampet that is waiting in a specific multiples is engaged in the singing practice room business or entertainment drinking house business at a time (the so-called tampet) and paid a fixed fee per hour (the so-called 'Tampet') with the said customers, and led them to an entertainment by dancing and singing together with the said customers, even if the said tampet was notified by the principal proprietor of the business, and the said tampet expenses were directly paid to them, in light of the legislative intent of the above Act, it shall be deemed that the principal proprietor of the business has employed the tamp as a part-time entertainment loan in consideration of the legislative intent of the above Act.

In the same purport, the court below is just in taking measures against the Defendants in violation of the Juvenile Protection Act by deeming the defendants as part-time entertainment loans to encourage the promotion of customers at the business places of the Defendants and receive part-time remuneration, and it cannot be deemed that there was an error of law by misapprehending the rules of evidence or by misapprehending the legal principles that found the facts erroneous in violation of the rules of evidence, as alleged in the grounds of appeal. All the grounds of appeal are dismissed.

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Yong-dam (Presiding Justice)