logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2020.04.08 2019고정955
청소년보호법위반
Text

The defendant shall be innocent.

Reasons

1. No person prosecuted shall sell drugs harmful to juveniles, etc. to juveniles;

Nevertheless, at around 20:00 on April 27, 2019, the Defendant sold to D(the age of 17) a juvenile at a general restaurant in Seodaemun-gu Seoul, Seodaemun-gu, Seoul, about the market price of drugs harmful to juveniles at KRW 4,00,00, and 1 disease.

2. On May 10, 2019, the Defendant issued an order from the police to receive drinking water, such as foodstuffs and call, from D working at the time of the instant case, and stated to the effect that drinking water was drinking in a cooling house and supplied to them. Food was prepared and supplied. After the police was dispatched, the Defendant stated to the effect that drinking and beer were stored in the table.

D, E, and F, which were at the site at the time of the instant case, are consistent with the Defendant’s above statement by stating to the effect that “I would like to say that I would like to say that I would like to say that I would like to say that I would like to say that I would like to say that I would like to say that I would like to say that I would like to say that I would like to say I would like to say I would like to say I would like to say that I would like to say I would like to say that I would like to say I would like to say that I would like to say I would like to say I would like to arbitrarily set I would like to say in

Considering the above statements, it cannot be ruled out the possibility that any arbitr in D's daily driving without being aware of the Defendant at the time of the instant case brought alcohol to a cooling house at his own discretion, and the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone excludes such possibility, and it is insufficient to readily conclude that the Defendant intentionally sold alcohol to D's daily driving, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

Thus, since the facts charged in this case constitute a case where there is no proof of facts constituting the crime, it is decided as per Disposition with the decision of not guilty pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the

arrow