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 "E" in Seo-gu Incheon Metropolitan City D.

No one shall sell, lend, or distribute drugs harmful to juveniles, etc. to juveniles.

Nevertheless, around February 15, 2012, around 01:30 on February 15, 2012, the Defendant sold 1 disease, etc. to 2 juveniles, such as juvenile F (17 years of age) at “Eju” operated by the Defendant.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Application of the respective statutory statements of the witness G, F, H, I, and J

1. Article 51 Subparag. 8 and Article 26 (1) of the former Juvenile Protection Act (wholly amended by Act No. 11179, Jan. 17, 2012) applicable to the relevant criminal facts;

1. Penalty fine of 500,000 won to be suspended;

1. Articles 70 and 69(2) of the Criminal Act (50,000 won per day) of the Criminal Act for the inducement of a workhouse;

1. Determination as to the assertion by the defendant and defense counsel under Article 59(1) of the Criminal Act (the first offender is the defendant, the circumstances leading to the crime of this case, and other factors such as the defendant's age, character and conduct, environment, etc.)

1. The alleged defendant and his defense counsel asserts the following purport:

The Defendant conducted an identification card to F and H, but said card presented an adult identification card to mislead him as an adult.

Even if it is not so, before F and H enter the above main points, I et al. first put their friendships into the above main points and put them on drinking, and the above I et al. presented an identification card to the defendant's demand for presentation of his identification card, and the defendant thought that the above I et al. was an adult, and the defendant was mistaken F and H as an adult.

Therefore, the defendant did not have any intention to violate the Juvenile Protection Act.

2. The witness G, F, H, I, and J’s legal statement that the Defendant did not verify F and H’s identification card seems to be reliable.

In addition, in light of the legislative intent of the Juvenile Protection Act,