Defendant

A shall be punished by a fine for negligence of KRW 2,000,000, and by a fine of KRW 500,000, respectively.

The above fine is imposed against the Defendants.

Punishment of the crime

Defendant

B The person who works as the store of “H”, a general restaurant located in Y in Y in the Jeonsan-gu, Jeonju-si, and the defendant A is the owner of the above H.

No one shall sell, lend, or distribute to juveniles harmful drugs, etc. to juveniles, such as alcoholic beverages and tobacco.

1. On September 6, 2015, the Defendant sold to the juvenile I ( South, 18 years old), who was found to be a guest on the same day from around 04:0 to around 04:30 on September 6, 2015, alcoholic beverages, which are harmful drugs to juveniles, one of the alcoholic beverages, which were harmful drugs to juveniles.

2. The Defendant A neglected to exercise due care and supervision over the pertinent work in order to prevent the instant violation of the laws and regulations against the said H, who is an employee of the said H, and the said Defendant B committed the same violation as the said 1.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ legal statement

1. The protocol concerning the interrogation of the Defendants to the prosecution

1. Each investigation report;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes of the I;

1. Article 59 subparagraph 6 of the Act on the Protection of Juveniles, Article 28 (1) of the Act on the Protection of Juveniles, Article 62 of the Act on the Protection of Juveniles, Article 59 subparagraph 6 of the Act on the Protection of Juveniles, Article 28 (1) of the Act on the Protection of Juveniles and Article 28 (1) of the Act on the Protection of Juveniles;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. Determination as to Defendant A’s assertion under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. As the Defendant A had exercised due diligence and supervision to prevent the selling of alcoholic beverages to juveniles by considerable means, the proviso of Article 62 of the Juvenile Protection Act shall apply.

In other words, Defendant A educated his employees directly or through the co-defendant B, who is the head of the point to confirm whether the juvenile is a juvenile, and confirmed whether the juvenile is a juvenile with a single-name tag, which is a machine to confirm the identity of the identity card and fingerprint of the person whose identity card is difficult to confirm, and has been able to prevent the act of selling liquor to the juvenile.

2. Determination

A. In light of the principle of self-responsibility of punishment, the violation occurred.