logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원 서부지원 2014.11.12 2014고정87
청소년보호법위반
Text

The defendant shall be innocent.

Reasons

1. The Defendant is a person who operates a general restaurant in the name of “D” in Daegu-gu C.

In spite of the fact that anyone is prohibited from selling alcoholic beverages, which are drugs harmful to juveniles, to juveniles, he/she sold to four persons, such as E (17 years of age) who are juveniles at the above restaurant around October 19, 2013.

2. Determination

A. The establishment of facts constituting an offense in a criminal trial ought to be based on strict evidence with probative value, which leads a judge to have a reasonable doubt, insofar as the prosecutor’s proof does not sufficiently reach the extent that such conviction would lead to such a conviction, even if the defendant’s assertion or defense is inconsistent or unreasonable, it should be determined in the interests of the defendant, even if there is doubt of guilt, such as the defendant’s assertion or defense is inconsistent or unreasonable.

B. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the record, there is no evidence to prove that each investigation agency and court statement of E, F, G and H cannot be trusted as they are, and otherwise there is no intention to sell alcoholic beverages to the Defendant.

① At the time of the instant case, E made a statement to the investigative agency that the Defendant did not conduct an examination of identification card at all on his or her own, but the Defendant did not present his or her identification card in this court, and reversed his or her statement by stating that he or she did not present his or her identification card.

② At the time of the instant case, F also stated that the Defendant did not conduct an examination of his identification card at all on his own with him, but in this court, G was required to present his identification card only with G and the statement that G presented his identification card was reversed.

(3) On the contrary, G is in accord with a witness E, F and its statement by stating that no identification card has been shown to the defendant in this court.

arrow