The sentence of sentence against the defendant shall be suspended.

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is a person who operates a general restaurant in the name of Yongsan-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D.

On April 28, 2013, in a restaurant on April 28, 2013, at around 00:05, juveniles sold alcoholic beverages equivalent to the sum of 51,000 won, such as F (ma, 17 years of age), G (ma, 16 years of age), H (ma, 16 years of age) and 500 won per swine and 1 disease per ju, per ju, per ju, per 1 disease.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of a witness I in the second protocol of the trial;

1. Statements made by witnesses G in the third protocol of trial;

1. Some of the police interrogation protocol of the defendant;

1. Application of each Act and subordinate statute to A, F, and H;

1. Relevant legal provisions concerning facts constituting an offense, and Articles 59 subparagraph 6 and 28 (1) of the Juvenile Protection Act which choose a penalty;

1. Articles 70 and 69(2) of the Criminal Act (100,000 won a day);

1. Article 59(1) of the Criminal Act (amended by Act No. 500,00 won for a fine, KRW 100,000 per day: The Defendant and the defense counsel’s defense counsel’s defense counsel’s defense assertion against the Defendant, except for the previous conviction of a fine for about 15 years, and the circumstances of the instant case, etc.) asserts that selling liquor to juveniles is an employee, and the Defendant has exercised considerable care and supervision in order to prevent the sale of liquor to juveniles.

According to the above evidence, it is reasonable to view that the defendant was aware of the order situation, etc. of customers at the time of the restaurant in this case. According to this, it is reasonable to view that the defendant, who operates the restaurant in this case, sold liquor to juveniles.

Furthermore, even if the sale of alcoholic beverages to juveniles is an employee I, the following circumstances are acknowledged by the aforementioned evidence, namely, that the defendant provided an employee with an education to verify his/her identification card, but the employee did not confirm whether he/she actually conducted an inspection of his/her identification card.