Whether a business owner or employee of a juvenile harmful business establishment has the duty to verify the age of a person who provides entertainment services (affirmative)

Article 24(2), Article 26-2 subparag. 2, and Article 49-3 of the Juvenile Protection Act; Article 20(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Juvenile Protection Act

Supreme Court Decision 2001Do3295 Decided August 21, 2001 (Gong2001Ha, 2136) Supreme Court Decision 2002Do2425 Decided June 28, 2002 (Gong2002Ha, 1896) Supreme Court Decision 2002Do4282 Decided October 8, 2002 (Gong2002Ha, 2772)

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney Park Jong-il

Cheongju District Court Decision 2007No20 decided June 21, 2007

The appeal is dismissed.

Article 26-2 subparag. 2 of the Juvenile Protection Act provides that no person shall allow a juvenile for profit to provide entertainment to customers by drinking alcohol, singing, dancing, etc., or assist such a juvenile in doing so. Considering that the legislative purport of the above Act is to protect the juvenile from various harmful environments including harmful acts so that the juvenile can grow into the sound character body of the juvenile, even though the duty of age verification as provided by Article 24(2) of the above Act and Article 20(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act does not explicitly provide for the act of inducing juveniles to provide entertainment to juveniles, a juvenile harmful business establishment as an owner or employee of an entertainment drinking house shall confirm whether the juvenile is a juvenile by identification card or any other reliable method and allow the juvenile to provide entertainment to provide entertainment only if it is confirmed that the juvenile is not a juvenile.

In full view of the adopted evidence, the court below recognized the fact that the defendant, while making a doubt that he may be a juvenile against the non-indicted person, did not take any measures to confirm the age of the non-indicted, and recognized the defendant's act of having the non-indicted provide entertainment services as it is, and decided that the defendant's act constitutes a violation of Article 49-3 and Article 26-2 Item 2 of the Juvenile Protection Act. In light of the above legal principles and records, the above fact-finding and decision of the court below are correct, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence or misunderstanding of legal principles as to Article 26-2 Item 2 of the Juvenile Protection Act, as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

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

Justices Kim Ji-hyung (Presiding Justice)