logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2014.06.13 2014노1356
청소년보호법위반
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal by the defendant;

A. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of the instant case even though the Defendant did not sell or provide alcoholic beverages to juveniles, such as misunderstanding of facts, and even though the Defendant did not dysing the place of diving, E et al. al., dysing alcohol in the air conditioners following the death of the Defendant, it erred by misapprehending the facts, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (fine 1,500,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. 1) In light of the legislative intent of the Juvenile Protection Act, the employer and employee of a business establishment prohibited from accessing juveniles are highly liable for not allowing them to enter the business establishment for the purpose of protecting juveniles. Thus, the employer and employee of a business establishment prohibited from accessing juveniles should objectively consider them as juveniles and verify their age based on resident registration certificates or evidence with public probative value of age to the same degree (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 93Do2914, Jan. 14, 1994; 2002Do2425, Jun. 28, 2002; 2002Do2425, etc.). If a business owner and employee failed to take any measures to verify their age and failed to enter the relevant business establishment, barring any special circumstances, the Defendant is found to have committed the crime of intentional violation of the Juvenile Protection Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200Do3714, Jul. 27, 2007). 207

arrow