[1] The meaning of "guardians who can get access to a soup to a soup on night time" under Article 7 [Attachment 4] 2 (d) (10) of the Enforcement Rule of the Public Health Control Act and the criteria for its determination

[2] The case holding that in a case where a male in the 20th and second half of the late night 20 was admitted to a soup room with a runawaying juvenile through Internet hosting, and the above juvenile was mistaken for the above juvenile's guardian, and the above juvenile was admitted to the above juvenile, the case holding that the above male's accompanying the juvenile under Article 7 [Attachment 4] 2 (d) (10) of the Enforcement Rule of the Public Health Control Act does not constitute a guardian who is allowed to enter the soup room during the late night hours, but there is no dolusent perception about the above juvenile

[1] In light of the contents of the Enforcement Rule of the Public Health Control Act and the legislative purport of the provision on the regulation on access to business establishments harmful to juveniles under the Juvenile Protection Act, and the degree of harm inflicted on juveniles during late night hours, the guardian who can enter the soup and late night pursuant to Article 7 [Attachment 4] 2 (d) (10) of the Enforcement Rule of the Public Health Control Act refers to a person who has the capacity and capacity to protect and guide juveniles accompanying the person with parental authority or the person with parental authority on behalf of the person with parental authority within the spatial and time range of soup and soup of late night time. Whether such qualification is satisfied should be determined objectively by taking into account not only the opinions of the juvenile and the guardian accompanying the juvenile, the age and relationship between the juvenile and his/her guardian accompanying him/her, the circumstances leading him/her to soup and making soup.

[2] The case holding that in a case where a male in the 20th and the second half of the late night 20 was admitted to a soup room with a runawaying juvenile through Internet hosting, and the above juvenile was mistaken for the above juvenile's guardian, and the above juvenile was admitted to the above juvenile, the above male did not constitute a guardian who can enter the soup room during the late night hours, but did not have any negligence in relation thereto, although the above male's accompanying to the juvenile under Article 7 [Attachment 4] 2 (d) (10) of the Enforcement Rule of the Public Health Control Act does not constitute a guardian who can enter the soup room during the late night hours.

[1] Article 2(1)3(b) of the Public Health Control Act, Article 7 [Attachment Table 4] 2(d)(10) of the Enforcement Rule of the Public Health Control Act, Article 1, Article 24 and Article 51 subparag. 7 of the Juvenile Protection Act / [2] Article 2(1)3(b) of the Public Health Control Act, Article 7 subparag. 2(d)(10) of the Enforcement Rule of the Public Health Control Act, Article 1, Article 24 and Article 51 subparag. 7 of the Juvenile Protection Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 2000Do3720 decided July 13, 2001 (Gong2001Ha, 1893)

Defendant

Prosecutor

Changwon District Court Decision 2008No1875 Decided December 4, 2008

The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

As so so doing so, Article 7(1)2(d)(10) of the Enforcement Rule of the Public Health Control Act provides services under Article 2(1)3(b) of the Public Health Control Act to protect juveniles from such harmful environment, in the case of public bath business that provides soup services for 24 hours pursuant to Article 2(1)3(b) of the Public Health Control Act, it shall be limited from 22:00 to 05:00 in the case of a place of business that provides soup services, but it shall not be limited to juveniles’ access pursuant to the Juvenile Protection Act from 22:0 to 00 (hereinafter “instant provision”).

In light of the content and legislative purport of the provision on the regulation of access to establishments harmful to juveniles under the Juvenile Protection Act and the degree of harmfulness to juveniles in late night hours, it is reasonable to interpret that the guardian who can make soup and make soup to the late night time is a person who has a person with parental authority or a person with parental authority to the extent that the juvenile accompanying on behalf of the person with parental authority or person with parental authority is able to protect and guide the harmful environment within the spatial and time range of soup to the late night time. Whether such qualification is satisfied shall be determined objectively by taking into account not only the intent of the juvenile and the guardian accompanying the juvenile, the age and relationship between the juvenile and his guardian accompanying him, and the situation of access to soup (see Supreme Court Decision 200Do3720, Jul. 13, 201).

According to the records, Nonindicted Party 1 (n, 14 years old), Nonindicted Party 2 (n, 12 years old), who is a juvenile released from home, through Internet hosting, has no well place in the second half of the 20th century with male (hereinafter “name unrecognive male”) and in the middle of the 20th century. On October 27, 2007, the name unregnive male did not have a well place in the second half of the 20th century. The name unregnive male together with the above juveniles was put to a sobry of the Defendant’s operation with the above juveniles at around 00:00, and it was recognized that he was sent time with the above juveniles. As such, it is difficult to view that the above juveniles and the above juveniles did not first appear to fall under the category of sexual intercourse with the above juveniles, and that they did not appear to fall under the protection of persons with parental authority or their employees, and that they did not appear to fall under the protection of their children and their ability at the police station.

Therefore, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the concept of guardian as to the provision of this case, which determined that it was insufficient to prove that South and North Korea is not a guardian of the provision of this case.

However, according to the records, Nonindicted 3, an employee of the above soup bank, appears to have taken the above juvenile's position by misunderstanding the above juvenile's name unexponed son who was committed due to the omission of the above juvenile as his guardian. In light of the name unexponed son and the above juvenile's appearance and attitude at the time, as long as it is difficult to find out circumstances to suspect that the above juvenile's name unexponed son is not a guardian as stated in the instant provision, it is difficult to view that Nonindicted 3 had a duty to confirm his relation with the above juvenile, and there is no other evidence to prove that Nonindicted 3 had dolusence that the above juvenile's name unexponed son was not the guardian of the above juvenile.

Therefore, the court below affirmed the judgment of the court of first instance which acquitted the defendant on the facts charged of this case on the ground that there is no proof of crime, and there is no illegality that affected the conclusion of the judgment due to the misapprehension of legal principles as to the concept of guardian and duty of confirmation as to whether the provision of this case

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Nung-hwan (Presiding Justice)