beta
Text
All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The statement of misunderstanding of facts and legal principles is not reliable, and Defendant A did not recognize that she was aware that she was aware that she was a woman, since she did not know that she was a woman, she did not know that she was a woman. As such, Defendant A did not intend to make a juvenile familiarly.
Defendant
B was not negligent in giving due attention and supervision to prevent juvenile marriage by educating the defendant A of Pyeongtaek that he/she should not be allowed to get a juvenile's accommodation.
B. The lower court’s punishment against the illegal Defendants (a fine of KRW 500,000) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination:
A. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court regarding the assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine, Defendant A was aware of the fact that at the time of the instant case, I et al. wanted to accommodation was a juvenile and was working for a female.
It is reasonable to view it.
In addition, Defendant B was not negligent in giving due attention and supervision to prevent such violation.
It is difficult to see the Defendants’ above assertion.
1) At the time of the instant case, juveniles who requested accommodation to Defendant A at the time of the instant case are the three-year-year-old school (the age of 15 per thousand) and are unreasonable to mislead Defendant A as an adult.
2) I presented to Defendant A a certificate of a fake University student made of a smartphone app that requires the presentation of identification card.
However, the above app screen does not have any probative value to verify identity, and it is not an identification card generally used, and thus, the customer confirmed the above screen and confirmed the identity of adult.
It is difficult to see it.
In addition, the defendant A did not confirm only the identification card of I, and the other personal identification card was not confirmed.
3) The witness I, K, and M in the lower judgment are the instant case.