The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. With respect to five persons who had first entered the 10th day of erroneous determination of facts, the Defendant could not be suspected as a minor because they had presented another person's identification card at the time of such examination. Moreover, the Defendant did not know the fact that there was an additional five persons, and did not provide them with additional answers.

In other words, the defendant did not have the intention to sell alcohol to juveniles.

B. In light of the fact that the primary operation of an unreasonable sentencing point is the only means of livelihood and is sentenced to a fine, business suspension is subject to a disposition of business suspension, etc., the original judgment’s penalty (700,000 won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the 1st Juvenile Protection Act and the enforcement decree thereof, anyone shall not sell harmful drugs to juveniles, etc., and any person who intends to sell, lend, or distribute harmful drugs, etc. to juveniles shall verify the age of the other party.

In light of the contents of these regulations and the legislative intent of the Juvenile Protection Act, the operators and employees of establishments that sell harmful substances to juveniles are given strict responsibilities to comply with the above provisions for the protection of juveniles.

Therefore, barring any circumstances where it is objectively difficult to doubt the person as a juvenile, the person's age should be confirmed based on resident registration certificates or evidence with public probative value of age to the extent similar to that of the person who entered the age group which is likely to be a juvenile, and if the business owner and the employee did not take any measures to confirm the age, barring special circumstances, the business owner and the employee shall be deemed to have dominence of the crime of violation of the Juvenile Protection Act due to the violation of the above legal provisions.

Supreme Court Decision 200