logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2013.06.13 2012고정3503
청소년보호법위반
Text

A defendant shall be punished by a fine of 500,000 won.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 50,000 won.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is a person who operates a c cafeteria.

On September 14, 2012, the Defendant sold the total amount of KRW 30,000,000 to the juvenile E (the age of 16) and one other than the juvenile E (the age of 16) located in the Suwon-si, Suwon-si, the Defendant’s management, around 23:50 on September 14, 2012.

Summary of Evidence

1. The defendant's partial statement in the first protocol of trial;

1. Each legal statement of witness E, F and G;

1. Criminal place and investigation report (general);

1. Application of business notification certificates, receipts, on-site photographs statutes;

1. Article 51 Subparag. 8 of the Juvenile Protection Act and the main sentence of Article 26 (1) of the former Juvenile Protection Act (amended by Act No. 11048, Sep. 15, 201);

1. Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. The defendant and his defense counsel's assertion on the claim of the defendant and his defense counsel under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the Provisional Payment Order, the defendant and his defense counsel presented the F's resident registration certificate of H that was born in 193 and the F that presented the identity card of H that was born in 1993 and the F that was born in 193 and the F that the defendant sold alcoholic beverages with the knowledge of E and F as adults. Thus, the above argument is not accepted in full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the above evidence: the defendant did not confirm his identification card; the defendant did not confirm his identification card; the appearance of H's resident registration certificate and the appearance of F are not similar to those of ordinary people; and since it is not clearly confirmed whether the defendant and F sold alcoholic beverages to juveniles E and F as stated in its reasoning, the above argument is not accepted.

arrow