The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant knew that he was well aware of the fact that he was well aware of the fact that he was well aware of the fact that he was well aware of the fact that he was well aware of the fact that he was well aware of with F, and that E and F were a juvenile.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case because he had the defendant know that he is a juvenile, and found the defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case.

B. In light of the overall circumstances of the instant case of unfair sentencing, the sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant (one million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Article 26-2 Subparag. 8 of the former Juvenile Protection Act (amended by Act No. 11048, Sep. 15, 2011; hereinafter the same shall apply) provides that no person shall engage in any business which disturbs public morals or provides a place for such business by allowing juveniles to have sexual intercourse well-known." Considering that the legislative purport of the above Act is to protect juveniles from various harmful acts so that juveniles can grow into healthy personality, a person engaged in a female business should be allowed sexual intercourse only if he/she confirms whether they are juveniles by identification card or any other reliable method and provides a place for such purpose.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2001Do3295 Decided August 21, 2001). The following circumstances, which can be acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, namely, ① At the time of committing the instant crime, E was 17 years of age and F was 14 years of age, and the police sent a report to the 112-time and called “the minor under the influence of alcohol was her mother,” or monitoring the Defendant’s statement.