Whether the act of selling alcoholic beverages to a juvenile under Article 51 subparagraph 8 of the Juvenile Protection Act is applicable in the case where a restaurant operator goes together with a juvenile later and drinks alcoholic beverages on the job at the time when the restaurant operator grants alcoholic beverages (negative with qualification)

In order for a person who operates a restaurant to constitute a "act of selling alcoholic beverages to juveniles" under Article 51 subparagraph 8 of the Juvenile Protection Act, the act of selling alcoholic beverages to many people who have entered the restaurant shall be deemed as a "act of selling alcoholic beverages to juveniles" under Article 51 subparagraph 8 of the Juvenile Protection Act. Thus, the restaurant operator may not be deemed to have engaged in the act of selling alcoholic beverages to juveniles even if the remaining alcoholic beverages remain at the time of the production of alcoholic beverages, only adults are present at the time of the production of alcoholic beverages and they are present at the last time, and they are present at the same time.

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

Defendant

Defendant

Daejeon District Court Decision 2000No2526 delivered on July 13, 2001

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

The court of first instance affirmed the judgment of the first instance on June 3, 199, on the ground that the defendant, who operates a restaurant called "Grarim", on the basis of his macroscopic evidence, sold three illnesss to the juvenile non-indicted 1 (n), the juvenile, at the above restaurant around 01:30 on June 3, 199, to the juvenile non-indicted 1 (the 16-year old age), and the court below also held that the defendant, even though he was aware that the non-indicted 1 was a juvenile, sold alcohol to him, and the non-indicted 1, who was present, was able to divide the alcohol and drink it.

However, in order for a restaurant operator to constitute a "act of selling alcoholic beverages to juveniles" under Article 51 subparagraph 8 of the same Act, the act of selling alcoholic beverages to many persons who have entered the restaurant. Thus, the restaurant operator cannot be deemed to have engaged in the act of selling alcoholic beverages to juveniles even if the combined juveniles remaining in the future, even if they were to receive some alcoholic beverages remaining in the future, and the restaurant operator had been aware of it at the time of granting the alcoholic beverages. Thus, in a case where only adults are present at the time of granting the alcoholic beverages and they come together with juveniles later, the restaurant operator would have been able to anticipate that the juvenile would come in the first place, or it was possible for the restaurant operator to predict that the juvenile would come in the first place, or even if they were to receive some alcoholic beverages remaining in the future, it cannot be said that the restaurant operator had engaged in the act of selling alcoholic beverages to the juveniles.

According to each statement of the Defendant and Nonindicted Party 1 made by the police, the above Nonindicted Party 1, a juvenile, was a woman who was at the tea delivery source operated by Nonindicted Party 2. The date and time of the judgment of the first instance, Nonindicted Party 2, the multiple owners, together with three friendships, drink the phone of having the above Nonindicted Party 1 enter the restaurant at the restaurant as indicated in the judgment. In response, Nonindicted Party 1, who was at the same time, was able to look at the taxi with the above Nonindicted Party 1, who was a female employee, and was at the restaurant, and was able to find out the fact that Nonindicted Party 1 was at the same time and did not enter the restaurant at the same time, and that Nonindicted Party 1 was at the same time, who was at the time, she was at the time Nonindicted Party 1 and she was at the time, and that Nonindicted Party 2 was at the time, who was at the time, was no longer able to recognize the fact that Nonindicted Party 1 was at the time, who was at the time, and was at the time, at the Defendant 1 was no longer at this.

Thus, the defendant's three soldiers of the main week, which the defendant was granted, did not constitute a crime since they sold to four adults' activities, and otherwise, although there is no evidence to acknowledge that the defendant offered alcohol to the defendant after Non-Indicted 1's participation and sold it, the court below's decision to maintain the judgment of the court of first instance as stated above is erroneous in the facts against the rules of evidence or by misapprehending the legal principles on the Juvenile Protection Act, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. Thus, the ground of appeal pointing this out is correct.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Ji-dam (Presiding Justice)