Punishment of the accused shall be 500,000 won.

If the defendant fails to pay the above fine, 50.

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant operated the main points in Seongdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D1 with “E”, and on November 01, 2013, the Defendant sold alcoholic beverages equivalent to KRW 61,000,000, including five and five and five alcoholic beverages, which are drugs harmful to juveniles, without verifying the age of juvenile F (ma, 17 years old) at the main points above around 01:00 and without confirming the age of juvenile F (E).

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Application of each statute on witness F, G and H’s statutory statement;

1. Article 59 of the Juvenile Protection Act and Articles 59 subparagraph 6 and 28 (1) of the same Act concerning criminal facts and the selection of fines;

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

1. The defendant and his defense counsel asserted that the defendant and his defense counsel convicted of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the provisional payment order should be acquitted in light of the purport of the Supreme Court Decision 2001Do4069 Decided October 9, 2001, since the defendant and his defense counsel asserted that in 1994, the defendant and his defense counsel first mentioned the main place of drinking and drinking alcohol by F after entering the last main place of drinking, and they sold drinking without verifying the identification card of the defendant F.

However, according to the evidence of the court below, it is recognized that the defendant was in combination with F in the 1994 life three customers and one customer with not confirmed the age of F, and the defendant did not know the situation and did not confirm F's identification card even after F's affiliation. Unlike the related precedents, in this case, the defendant provided additional drinking even after F's affiliation, as well as the third person who was in the front point of F was in 194, and the third person was in 19 years old, and the remaining person (H) did not possess an identification card, and in this case, the defendant did not confirm his identification card on the ground that F and H were bad and the defendant did not recognize F as a juvenile's age in 194.

Therefore, the above assertion is valid.