2013No72 Violation of the Juvenile Protection Act

A person shall be appointed.

Prosecutor

Kim U.S. (Lawsuits) Man-hee (Court Decision)

Attorney Jeon Jae-won (National Assembly Line)

Ulsan District Court Decision 2012Ma2997 Decided January 11, 2013

May 31, 2013

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 700,00.

Defendant who converted 50,000 won into one day when the above fine has not been paid;

shall be confined in a workhouse.

1. Summary of the grounds for appeal;

Although the Defendant did not possess an identification card at the time of the sale of the instant alcoholic beverages, the Defendant merely sold alcoholic beverages after hearing only the horses of the juvenile, and thus, even if the Defendant had dolusent intent in committing the instant crime, the lower court acquitted the Defendant on the ground that the Defendant was not aware of B as a juvenile, and thus, acquitted the Defendant, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. Summary of the facts charged in this case

The defendant is a person who operates a general restaurant in the name of "C" in Ulsan Nam-gu.

At around 50 on March 16, 2012, the Defendant sold 2 and 1,700cc 2 residuess to juveniles from C (the age of 17) in C C C C, and sold alcoholic beverages to juveniles.

B. The judgment of the court below

Comprehensively taking account of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the lower court determined that the Defendant, on March 16, 2012: (a) around 50, “C,” which was operated by the Defendant, presented a resident registration certificate under the name of E, F, B, G, and G to verify the age of E, etc.; (b) the Defendant demanded that the Defendant present an identification card to verify the age of E, etc.; (c) the Defendant presented the resident registration certificate under the name of H (S) which was in his possession; (d) the birth year was modified from 94 to 91 years; (e) the birth period was 193 years old; (e) the Defendant knew that the Defendant offered a student card under the name of G and his name was friendly; (e) the Defendant was not aware that the Defendant offered a student card under the name of E, F, G, and G; and (e) the Defendant was not aware that the Defendant offered a student card under the name of H and 40 years old, and that the Defendant was not aware of his identity and 94 years old evidence.

C. The judgment of this Court

(1) Article 26(1) of the Juvenile Protection Act provides that no person shall sell, lease, or distribute harmful drugs to juveniles. Article 20(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provides that “any person who intends to sell, lease, or distribute harmful drugs, etc. harmful to juveniles pursuant to Article 26(1) of the same Act shall verify the age of the other party.” Thus, a person who sells harmful drugs, etc. harmful to juveniles shall be highly liable for not selling alcoholic beverages to juveniles for the protection of juveniles. Thus, a person who sells alcoholic beverages shall be deemed as a person other than the other party, and a person who sells alcoholic beverages shall be deemed as a person who is highly likely to be a juvenile, barring any circumstances that make it difficult to doubt that he/she is a person other than the other party, is 00,000,000,0000,0000,0000,0000,0000,0000,0000,000,0000,000.

(2) In light of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, the court below alleged that the defendant, as recognized by the court below, sold alcoholic beverages without confirming the defendant's identity, i.e., ① demanded the rest of the day with B to present his identification card, and the date of birth on his identification card, although the defendant confirmed that B did not have his identification card, ② the defendant did not confirm his identification card with the fact that he sold alcoholic beverages to juveniles in the past, and ② the defendant was punished as a fact that he sold them, so more detailed and thorough care was required to confirm whether the defendant is a juvenile. ③ Nevertheless, the defendant believed that the defendant sold alcoholic beverages to the defendant without confirming the defendant's status as 91 year birth, ④ it is difficult to view that the defendant believed that he sold them as 91 years old, and that it was hard to see that the defendant believed that it was a public figure or evidence of the juvenile's personal identification certificate to the extent that it was objectively doubtful by the reason that it was difficult to view that the defendant's use of alcoholic beverages to the extent of the defendant's identification or evidence.

(3) Therefore, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant of the facts charged in this case on the ground that the defendant did not recognize that he was a juvenile at the time was a juvenile of this case is erroneous and adversely affected by the judgment

3. Conclusion

Since the prosecutor's appeal is well-grounded, the judgment of the court below shall be reversed in accordance with Article 364 (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the following judgment shall be rendered after pleading.

Criminal History Office

As described in Section 2-A (A) above.

Summary of Evidence

1. The defendant's partial statement in court;

1. Each police interrogation protocol against E and F:

1. Written statements in K and B;

1. Reporting on the occurrence of the case, reporting on the control of public morals and business offices, and investigation report (violation of the Juvenile Protection Act, etc.);

1. A certificate of business report;

1. On-site photographs;

Application of Statutes

1. Relevant Article of the Criminal Act and the selection of punishment for the crime;

Article 51 subparagraph 8 of the Juvenile Protection Act and Article 26 (1) of the same Act.

1. Detention in a workhouse;

Articles 70 and 69(2) of the Criminal Act

Reasons for sentencing

Considering the legislative intent of the Juvenile Protection Act that intends to protect the sound growth of juveniles, and the fact that the accused has been punished for the same kind of force twice, the need to punish the accused strictly is recognized.

However, the defendant presented identification cards to E, etc. before selling the alcoholic beverages of this case, and all other behaviors except B, and among them, E and F presented the citizen registration certificate of others, and in such circumstances, E, etc. sold alcoholic beverages to Eul as they are the 91-year residents of B. There is room for some consideration in the course of committing the crime, and the defendant currently does not engage in restaurant business, and the punishment like the order shall be determined by taking into account all the circumstances, such as the defendant's age, character and behavior, environment, motive for committing the crime, and circumstances after committing the crime, etc.

Judges fixed line

Judges Jin-Law

Judges Mahova-Gyeong