The sentence of sentence against the defendant shall be suspended.

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is a person who operates a restaurant with the trade name "D" in Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government.

No one shall sell harmful drugs, etc. to juveniles to juveniles.

Nevertheless, at around 02:00 on March 12, 2016, E, an employee of the above restaurant, sold 2 soldiers and 4 Macju, who are drugs harmful to juveniles, to F (16 years of age), G (18 years of age), H (18 years of age), I (17 years of age), J (15 years of age), K (n, 15 years of age), etc.

Accordingly, E, an employee of the defendant, sold drugs harmful to juveniles as above in relation to the defendant's business.

Summary of Evidence

1. Each legal statement of the witness F, H, I, J, K, and L;

1. Each statement in F, H, I, J, K, and E;

1. In light of on-site photographs, copies of business registration certificates, 112 Reporting List of Juvenile Protection Act and the legislative intent of the Juvenile Protection Act, the main place of business and employees are given a very strict responsibility not to sell or provide liquor to juveniles for the purpose of protecting juveniles;

As such, barring any circumstances where it is objectively difficult to doubt the customer as a juvenile, the owner and the employee of the main place of business shall verify the subject's age based on resident registration certificates or evidence of public probative value of age to the extent that it is likely to be a juvenile. If the owner and the employee of the main place of business sell and provide alcoholic beverages to juveniles without taking any justifiable measures to confirm their age in violation of the duty to verify the age, barring special circumstances, at least dolusent intent of the crime of violation of the Juvenile Protection Act is recognized to the owner and employees of the main place of business and employees. According to the above evidence, the age is based on evidence with public probative value of age when selling alcoholic beverages as stated in the judgment of the Defendant E, who is an employee of the Defendant.