The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In other words, the Defendant did not sell an alcoholic beverage to a minor.

Shebly, even if the defendant sold alcohol to a minor, it is by negligence, and the Juvenile Protection Act does not punish the defendant as a crime of violating the Juvenile Protection Act, since there is no penal provision about the sale of alcohol to a minor by negligence.

Then, the court below found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged by misunderstanding the facts or misunderstanding the legal principles.

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

2. Determination

A. (i) In light of the legislative intent of the Juvenile Protection Act, the employer and the employee of a business establishment prohibited from allowing juveniles to enter the relevant business establishment for the purpose of protecting juveniles is subject to a very strict liability for not allowing juveniles to enter the relevant business establishment.

As such, the owner or employee of a business establishment prohibited from allowing access to juveniles should verify the age of the person subject to access based on resident registration certificates or other evidence of public probative value of age to the age group that is likely to be a juvenile unless there are circumstances that make it difficult to doubt the person subject to access from the objective point of view.

(See Supreme Court Decisions 93Do2914 delivered on January 14, 1994; 2002Do2425 delivered on June 28, 2002, etc.). In addition, if a juvenile enters the relevant establishment due to his/her failure to take any measures to confirm his/her age by violating the duty to verify the age, barring any special circumstance, the employer and the employee shall be deemed to have dolusent intent to commit a crime of violating the Juvenile Protection Act due to a violation of the aforementioned legal provisions.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Do8039, Apr. 23, 2004). Furthermore, this legal doctrine is in light of the legislative intent of the Juvenile Protection Act.