logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 서산지원 2018.02.02 2017고단970
청소년보호법위반
Text

The defendant shall be innocent.

Reasons

1. No person prosecuted shall sell, lend, distribute, or provide free of charge harmful drugs, etc. to juveniles;

Nevertheless, around September 16, 2017, the Defendant sold to the Youth F (Y, 18 years of age) a youth restaurant located in Seosan-si D, Seosan-si, around September 16, 2017.

Accordingly, the defendant sold alcoholic beverages, which are harmful to juveniles, to juveniles.

2. Determination

A. Although the Defendant did not confirm F’s identification card on the day of the instant assertion, F had been several times before the instant case, and was adults as a result of the verification of his identification card, the F did not have the perception that it was a juvenile at the time of the instant case.

B. In light of F’s statement that corresponds to the facts charged in the instant case is the F’s statement, and F’s statement is frequently changed; F’s statement is contrary to the police officer’s statement or statement contrary to his common sense; F’s statement attitude in F’s court, etc., it is difficult to credibility the F’s statement that the F visited F, including the instant case, and that there was no enemy who had been inspected one time.

Rather, according to the witness G’s legal statement, F’s statement, and evidence No. 1, F’s statement, and evidence No. 1, F visited the above store several times prior to the instant case, and appears to have presented another person’s identification card, an adult, at the time, to have been presented. Accordingly, there may be negligence on which the Defendant did not properly verify the identification card presented by F prior to the instant case, but the F sold alcoholic beverages, recognizing it as a juvenile.

It is difficult to see it.

Other evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone that the facts charged were proven without reasonable doubt.

It is insufficient to view it, and there is no other evidence to prove it.

3. In conclusion, the facts charged in the instant case constitute a case where there is no proof of crime, and thus, a judgment of innocence is rendered after the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

arrow