The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. At the time of misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles, the Defendant confirmed that he was not a juvenile, and confirmed that he was not a juvenile, and that the above behaviors were both related to G and friendly relations, and that he did not confirm the identification card against G by making anti-ends even if they were to verify the identification card of G.

Therefore, at the time, the defendant did not have the intention to commit the crime of violating the Juvenile Protection Act because there was a special circumstance to regard G as a juvenile from an objective perspective or not a juvenile.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which convicted the charged facts of this case is erroneous by misunderstanding the facts or by misunderstanding the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (the fine of KRW 500,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In light of the legislative intent of the Juvenile Protection Act regarding the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the employer and the employee of a business establishment banned from allowing access to juveniles are highly strict and responsible for not selling alcoholic beverages to juveniles for the protection of juveniles. Therefore, barring any circumstances that make it difficult to doubt the accesser as a juvenile from an objective point of view, the subject’s age should be verified based on the resident registration certificate or evidence with public probative value of age to the extent that the accesser is likely to be a juvenile.

If a juvenile enters the relevant business establishment by failing to take any measures to confirm the age in violation of the duty to confirm the age, barring any special circumstance, the employer and the employee of the business establishment are deemed to have dolusent intent to commit the crime of violation of the Juvenile Protection Act due to a violation of the said provision (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2003Do8039, Apr. 23, 2004; 2007Do770, Nov. 16, 2007).