Defendant shall be punished by a fine of 1.2 million won.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.

Punishment of the crime

The defendant of "2015 High 1353" is a holder of Cchip motor vehicle.

No person shall operate any motor vehicle on a road, which has not been covered by mandatory insurance.

Nevertheless, the Defendant did not subscribe to mandatory insurance, but operated the said car at the roads next to the original elementary school in Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Daejeon on May 18, 2015.

The defendant of "2015 High 1593" is a person who operates a general restaurant under the trade name of "E" in Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seoul.

No one is allowed to sell drugs harmful to juveniles, etc. to juveniles, but the Defendant sold alcoholic beverages equivalent to 11,000 won at the market price, such as roasting 2 Hobbes and 1 concurrently, which are drugs harmful to juveniles, without verifying his/her identification card to F (16 years of age) and one other, who is a juvenile at the above restaurant on July 19, 2015.

Summary of Evidence

"2015 High 1353"

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Investigation report (verification and reporting of details of fines for negligence on any violation of spirits of the Register of Automobile Registration);

1. Investigation report on the actual condition of traffic accidents: (1) and (2), inquire into mandatory insurance (C), request for verification as to whether a motor vehicle is owned, and reply “2015 high-level 1593”;

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of witness F and G;

1. A statement of control, a report on business control of public morals and field photo [the defendant and his defense counsel verified identification card at the time of his visit from F, etc. and caused the defendant to sell alcoholic beverages by misunderstanding it as an adult, so there was no intention;

However, in light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence of each judgment, F first visited the main place on the day of the instant case, and there was no confirmation as to whether the Defendant was adult, and the enforcement officer attempted to inspect the identification card by appearance by the F and one other, and even according to the Defendant’s assertion, the Defendant did not inspect the identification card of the juveniles on the day of the instant case. In light of the fact that there was no record of inspecting the identification card of the juveniles on the day of the instant case, the Defendant was aware of the fact that the people who were the main place at the