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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. According to the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court: (a) the Defendant, running an entertainment drinking club, was a juvenile E, F, and G (hereinafter “E”) on May 3, 2012 for profit-making purposes; and (b) the same month.

4. As to the facts charged in this case where the above E employed each of the above E and engaged in entertainment, the court of first instance which acquitted the defendant on the ground that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone cannot be readily concluded that the defendant knew that E, etc. was a juvenile or was not a juvenile but a juvenile.

2.(a)

In light of the legislative purpose of the Juvenile Protection Act, the owners of establishments harmful to juveniles such as entertainment taverns are given a very strict responsibility for not employing juveniles in such establishments for the purpose of protecting juveniles.

As a result, in employing an employee at an entertainment drinking house, the owner of the entertainment drinking house has a duty to verify the age of the subject in accordance with a resident registration certificate or evidence of public probative value of age to the extent similar to that of his/her resident registration certificate, and if it is doubtful that the photograph and real are different from that of his/her resident registration certificate presented by the subject, the juvenile is obliged to take additional measures to confirm the age of the subject in light of the vulnerable employment circumstances of the entertainment industry where the juveniles are engaged in entertainment drinking places, etc., such as making a detailed comparison of his/her resident registration certificate with his/her photograph and real objects, or making him/her open his/her address or resident registration number on his/her resident registration certificate.

B. According to the reasoning of the lower judgment and the record of the first instance judgment, around 22:00 on May 3, 2012, E, etc., the Defendant’s husband L, who was in an entertainment drinking club operated by the Defendant, was a third party’s resident registration certificate with the Defendant’s husband L, not a juvenile. However, L’s face of pictures, E, etc. on the resident registration certificate is replaced with detail.