A defendant shall be punished by a fine of 500,000 won.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant is an employee of “Djuk” in Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government.

No one shall sell drugs harmful to juveniles, etc. to juveniles.

Nevertheless, around 01:10 on June 9, 2015, the Defendant sold to E (n, 17) and F (n, 18 years old), a juvenile, who was found to be a customer in the above restaurant, one disease per week, such as the first day, which is a juvenile harmful drug.

Summary of Evidence

1. Each legal statement of witness E and F;

1. Control note;

1. Application of statutes on site photographs;

1. Article 59 of the relevant Act on Criminal facts and Articles 59 subparagraph 6 and 28 (1) of the Protection of Juveniles Eligible for the Selection of Punishment;

1. Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. Judgment on the assertion by the defendant and his/her defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The defendant and his defense counsel asserted that, at the time, G et al., a juvenile other than a juvenile, operated E and F with "D main points", and the defendant ordered the defendant to have the lawsuit and ordered the defendant to have the lawsuit. However, the defendant cannot be deemed to have sold the lawsuit to E and F, a juvenile, since E and F did not have the fact of the above main place of lawsuit.

2. The day-to-day, including the judgment of the juvenile, ordered the drinking to enter a restaurant, and the juvenile sold the drinking to that person in a situation where it is anticipated that the juvenile would drink together with the drinking. In fact, if the juvenile drink together with the drinking, it constitutes a "act of selling the drinking to the juvenile" under the Juvenile Protection Act, and in this case, the juvenile ordered the drinking or calculated the drinking value.

(2) The same does not apply to

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Do3999, Sept. 24, 2004). According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, E and F opened to the table table, around 01:00 on June 9, 2015, together with G and H, other than other juveniles, and not juveniles, and opened to the table table, and the Defendant opened to the table table.