logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2019.06.21 2019노433
청소년보호법위반
Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 700,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles are viewed by the Defendant on behalf of his mother who is the owner of the instant main point, and the Defendant is not a worker of the instant main point.

Furthermore, the Defendant confirmed one person’s identification card during driving and visited all of his children, and there is no intention to commit the crime.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty on a different premise is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles.

B. The sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant (the fine of 1.5 million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) The evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below as to the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles. In particular, according to the police interrogation protocol of the defendant against the defendant, the defendant was paid 1,40,000 won per second day while the defendant was working for every week from the time the main points of this case were opened to 8:00 to 2:00 won from the next day of the new wall. If the facts are the same on the day of this case, the defendant does not simply look at the defendant's mother on behalf of his child, but should be deemed to have worked as an employee of the main points of this case at the time of this case. 2) In light of the legislative purport of the Juvenile Protection Act as to whether the defendant was found to have had the intention to commit a crime, the owner of the business establishment prohibited from allowing access to juveniles and the employees are highly liable for not selling alcoholic beverages for the protection of the juvenile, so it should be objectively viewed that the defendant is highly likely to have access to the age of the juvenile, and unless there are objectively doubtful circumstances.

owners and owners; and

arrow