logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2016.08.26 2016노787
청소년보호법위반
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is as follows: (a) although the defendant did not have any intention or negligence in violation of the Juvenile Protection Act, such as demanding and confirming identification cards to all four juveniles including F, etc. at the time of the instant case; (b) the court below found the defendant guilty of the criminal facts against the defendant; and (c) misunderstanding the legal principles of the Supreme Court precedents concerning the duty to verify the age

2. The defendant and his defense counsel asserted that the defendant had no intention to commit a violation of the Juvenile Protection Act even as alleged in the above. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence of the judgment, the court below held that the defendant had no intention to commit a crime of violating the Juvenile Protection Act: (i) the defendant did not inspect the identification card against the juvenile F at the time of the instant case; (ii) G, H, and I presented the identification card to the juvenile; (iii) although G, H, and I did not go through the process of confirming whether the identification card was an adult; and (iv) G, H, and I present as a witness in this court as a witness, appears to be difficult to be externally convicted as an adult, at least dolu

In determining that it is reasonable to see the above argument, it rejected.

The judgment below

Examining the text closely by comparing it with the records, the recognition of facts based on the evidence of the court below is justifiable, and it is sufficiently acceptable.

In addition, the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, namely, ① Juvenile F, from the investigative agency to the court of the lower court, consistently stated that “B, upon receiving the original order, did not have himself/herself at the time of the examination of his/her identification card against G, etc., and did not receive any demand from the Defendant to present his/her identification card,” and credibility in its statement.

arrow