[1] The duty required to verify the age of the proprietor of a business establishment banned from employing juveniles is required to employ workers engaged in entertainment

[2] Whether a health examination pocketbook (tentatively named health certificate) or a health examination report can be deemed as a evidence with the public probative value of age (negative)

[3] The case holding that the owner of a business establishment banned from employing juveniles has dolusent negligence in employing juveniles

[1] In light of the legislative purpose of the Juvenile Protection Act, a business owner of a business establishment harmful to entertainment, such as an entertainment drinking house, shall not employ a juvenile for the purpose of protecting the juvenile. Thus, when an entertainment drinking house business owner employs an employee to the relevant entertainment business, he/she shall verify the age of the person subject to employment based on resident registration certificates or other evidence with public probative value of age sufficient to the extent similar to that of his/her resident registration certificate. If it is not easy for the person subject to employment to verify the age of the person subject to employment due to the loss of his/her identification card, etc., if the person subject to employment is not easy for him/her to verify the age of the person subject to employment, the principal business owner of a business establishment harmful to entertainment shall withhold or refuse the employment of the person subject to employment until the juvenile is able to verify the age of the person subject to employment by public certification in light of the employment situation, etc. where the person subject to employment of the entertainment

[2] Considering that the health examination pocketbook system was abolished, the purpose and process of preparing the health examination report system, the purpose of issuing a health examination report, the verification procedure to verify the identity of the person subject to examination in the process of issuing a health examination report, and the degree of proof of the health examination report on the identity of the person subject to examination, etc., even if there are personal information such as the resident registration number of the person subject to examination, it shall not be deemed as evidence having public probative value of age to the extent similar to the resident registration certificate.

[3] The case holding that the owner of an entertainment business cannot be deemed to have fulfilled his/her duty to verify only the date of birth indicated in the medical examination result that it merely confirms other public probative evidence as the owner of an entertainment business, and therefore, the owner of an entertainment business cannot be deemed to have fulfilled his/her duty to verify the age for the protection of juveniles, and therefore, the owner of an entertainment business who, without fulfilling his/her duty to fulfill his/her duty, believed that he/she is an adult only and confirmed only another person's medical examination result

[1] Articles 1, 2 subparag. 5(a)(1), 4, 5, 24(1), and 50 subparag. 2 of the former Juvenile Protection Act (amended by Act No. 6479 of May 24, 2001) / [2] Article 26 of the Food Sanitation Act, Articles 8 and 30 of the Prevention of Contagious Diseases Act, Article 1 and 4 of the Rules on Health Examination for Workers in Sanitary Fields, Article 8 of the former Rules on Health Examination for Workers in Sanitary Fields (amended by Ordinance No. 114 of May 29, 199) / [3] Articles 24(1) and 50 subparag. 2 of the former Juvenile Protection Act (amended by Act No. 6479 of May 24, 2001), Article 13 of the Criminal Act

[1] [2/3] Supreme Court Decision 93Do2914 delivered on January 14, 1994 (Gong1994Sang, 754) / [1/3] Supreme Court Decision 2001Do3295 Delivered on August 21, 2001 (Gong2001Ha, 2136)

Defendant

Prosecutor

Seoul High Court Decision 2001No1473 delivered on May 3, 2002

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below affirmed the judgment of the court of first instance which acquitted the defendant on the ground that the defendant, who runs an entertainment drinking house which is a business establishment harmful to juveniles, employed the non-indicted 1, a juvenile with the name of adult Kim Jong-young in the relevant business establishment around January 5, 2001, was mistaken for the non-indicted 1 as an adult Kim Jong-ju at the time of employing the non-indicted 1 or during the employment period, and there is no evidence to support that the defendant knew that the non-indicted 1 was a juvenile.

Article 1 of the Juvenile Protection Act provides that the purpose of this Act is to enable juveniles to grow into sound character by regulating the distribution of harmful media materials and drugs, etc. harmful to juveniles and their access to harmful entertainment establishments, and by protecting and remedying them from various harmful environments including violence and abuse, and Article 4 (1) and (2) of the same Act provides that any person shall endeavor to prevent juveniles from entering into an environment harmful to them, and shall make efforts necessary to protect juveniles by reporting and filing complaints with the relevant organizations, etc., and that any person who operates an entertainment establishment harmful to juveniles and any association composed of them shall, in light of the legislative purpose of Article 2 (1) (a) and (2) of the same Act, make efforts to identify the persons subject to the juvenile's age limit and who do not have access to such establishment as their result, and that any person who runs an entertainment establishments harmful to juveniles and any person who runs an entertainment business shall not have access to such establishment unless they are identified as their age limit and any other person shall not have access to such establishment, and the provisions of Article 2 (2) (1) and (3) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provide that juveniles shall not have access.

However, according to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below and the records of the court of first instance, on January 5, 2001, the defendant employed Nonindicted 1, a person who was employed as an entertainment worker at his own establishment with a title to manage him. At the time of interview, the defendant was issued resident registration certificates from Lee Jae-chul, Lee Jae-chul, and confirmed his age at the time of interview, and entered into a contract for employment with him. However, at the time of the interview, Nonindicted 1 was at the time when he was on duty in the past for hiding Kim Jong-ju's name, Kim Jong-ju's name, which was in possession of the defendant for the purpose of hiding Kim Jong-ju's own for the purpose of hiding his youth, and the defendant presented Kim Jong-sung's name, which was the result of the health examination (the resident registration number of Kim Jong-sung, as the result of the interview, was stated as 800223-2, omitted, and the defendant was at the age of 10,000 after the completion of the health examination.

As shown in the above facts, it is found that the defendant confirmed only the result of the health examination conducted in the name of the adult Kim Jong-ju, which was presented by Nonindicted 1 on the day of the conclusion of the employment contract with the defendant Kim Jong-ju, and that he performed the work after concluding the employment contract with Nonindicted 1 on the day of the fact that he believed that his female was an adult, who is the subject of employment, and that he did not take all necessary measures to confirm the age of the juvenile of the business owner of the business establishment harmful to the juveniles as seen above, and therefore, the defendant did not take all necessary measures to confirm the age of the juvenile of the business owner of the business establishment harmful to the juveniles as seen above, and therefore, the defendant had at least dolusence as to the employment of

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant on the ground that the defendant's criminal intent cannot be recognized is erroneous in the misunderstanding of legal principles as to the duty to confirm the age of juvenile and prohibit employment of the owner of a business establishment harmful to juveniles.

Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Jae-hun (Presiding Justice)