Whether an act of selling alcohol to a juvenile under Item 8 of Article 51 of the Juvenile Protection Act constitutes "an act of selling alcohol to a juvenile" in a case where a restaurant operator was only an adult at the time of the provision of alcohol but later a juvenile is present at the time of the provision of alcohol (negative with qualification)

In a case where a person who operates a restaurant was only an adult at the time of a drinking alcohol to the persons who enter the restaurant, and later a juvenile was able to drink only, and later became a joint member of the restaurant, the restaurant operator was under circumstances that could have predicted that the juvenile was a joint member of the restaurant later, or that the juvenile was a joint member of the restaurant, or that the juvenile was a joint member of the restaurant. However, even if a juvenile was a joint member of the restaurant, the restaurant operator cannot be deemed to have performed a "act of selling a remaining alcoholic beverage to a juvenile" as provided in Article 51 subparagraph 8 of the Juvenile Protection Act, and this legal principle does not change because the restaurant operator provided a joint member of the restaurant with a remaining alcoholic beverage according to a joint member of the restaurant.

Article 26(1) and Article 51 Subparag. 8 of the Juvenile Protection Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 2001Na4069 decided Oct. 9, 2001 (Gong2001Ha, 2504)

Defendant

Defendant

Chuncheon District Court Decision 2000No1254 delivered on October 26, 2001

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Chuncheon District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

In a case where a person who operates a restaurant was only an adult at the time of a drinking alcohol to the persons who enter the restaurant, and later a juvenile was present at the time of drinking alcohol, the restaurant operator could have predicted that the juvenile was present at the last time, or that the juvenile was present at the time when the juvenile was present at the restaurant, or where the juvenile was present at the last time after the juvenile was present at the meeting, the restaurant operator cannot be deemed to have engaged in a "act of selling alcoholic beverages to the juvenile" under Article 51 subparagraph 8 of the Juvenile Protection Act (see Supreme Court Decision 2001Do4069, Oct. 9, 201). This legal doctrine does not change because the restaurant operator provided the remaining alcoholic beverages to the juvenile who was present at the last time according to the restaurant operator's drinking alcohol.

According to the records, the adult non-indicted 1 and 2 entered the restaurant operated by the defendant first, and they drinkd with the 4,00c and the boomer, etc., ordering him to do so. The non-indicted 1 sent a phone to the non-indicted 3, who is his mother, and the non-indicted 3 was in combination with the non-indicted 1, 2 with the non-indicted 4 with the Handphone and the non-indicted 4. The non-indicted 2 brought a beer to the above restaurant and brought a beer to the non-indicted 3 and 4. The fact that the plaintiff 2 brought a beer to the non-indicted 3 and 4, brought a beer to the restaurant, and there is no evidence to find that the non-indicted 1 and the non-indicted 1 were diced by the additional order of alcohol, or that the defendant was anticipated at the beginning that the non-indicted 3 et al. was al. later.

Thus, the court below found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case, which is erroneous in violation of the rules of evidence, or in misunderstanding the legal principles as to the Juvenile Protection Act, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, although there is no evidence to find that the defendant, after Non-Indicted 3 et al. joined and sold the same, he did not constitute a crime since 4,000cc. provided by the defendant sold to two adults.

The ground of appeal pointing this out is with merit.

Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Jin-hun (Presiding Justice)