[1] Details of the duty required to verify the age in employing entertainment workers by the owner of a business establishment banned from employing juveniles

[2] The case holding that the owner of a business establishment banned from employing juveniles has dolusent negligence in employing juveniles

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

[1] Supreme Court Decision 93Do2914 delivered on January 14, 1994 (Gong1994Sang, 754) Supreme Court Decision 2002Do2425 delivered on June 28, 2002 (Gong2002Ha, 1896) Supreme Court Decision 2002Do363 delivered on October 25, 2002

Defendant

Defendant

Gwangju District Court Decision 2003No1926 delivered on December 24, 2003

The appeal is dismissed.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

In light of the legislative purpose of the Juvenile Protection Act, the proprietor of a business establishment harmful to juveniles, such as entertainment tavern, shall not employ a juvenile for the purpose of protecting the juvenile. As such, the proprietor of an entertainment bar business shall verify the age of the person subject to employment by means of a resident registration certificate or other evidence of public probative value to the degree similar thereto. If it is not easy to verify the age of the person subject to employment because the person subject to employment was lost due to the loss of his/her identification card, etc., the proprietor of a business establishment harmful to juveniles shall withhold or refuse the employment of the person subject to employment until the age of the person subject to employment can be verified by public proof (see Supreme Court Decisions 200Do2425, Jun. 28, 2002; 200Do325, Mar. 36, 2002).

The court below acknowledged the facts as stated in its reasoning by taking full account of the adopted evidence. Based on this, the defendant demanded the non-indicted 1 to present the original resident registration certificate at the time of employment of the non-indicted 1, or confirmed that the defendant's photograph and actual objects are different from that of the resident registration certificate at the time of employment of the non-indicted 2, and thus, it could be easily confirmed whether the non-indicted 1 or the copy of the resident registration certificate presented by the non-indicted 2 or his age could be confirmed if he had done the age verification by fulfilling his duty of care, such as the non-indicted 1 or the non-indicted 2's obligation to verify the age more actively, or the age of his women could be easily confirmed. Thus, the court below found the defendant guilty of the defendant's failure to establish the above facts in light of the legal principles as to the employment relationship between the non-indicted 1 and the non-indicted 1's resident registration certificate and the non-indicted 2's face, and it did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the employment relationship between the defendant 2 and the defendant.

In addition, in this case where a fine is imposed against the defendant, the reason that the sentence of the court below is excessive shall not be a legitimate ground for appeal.

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

Justices Shin Shin-chul (Presiding Justice)