The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. At the time of the instant case, the Defendant was unaware of the fact that 6 juveniles, such as D, entered the PC, and the Defendant was found later, but did not have any other identification card inspection with the knowledge that he was an employee working at an entertainment drinking house, and did not have any awareness and intent to enter the room in violation of the hours for admitting juveniles.

Therefore, even though there was no intention to commit a violation of the Act on the Promotion of Game Industry for Juvenile's Admission Hours for Juveniles, the judgment of the court below which found the juveniles guilty of the violation of the Act.

B. In light of the circumstances such as the Defendant’s appearance at the time of unfair sentencing, lack of water surface, economic poor, old age, etc., the lower court’s punishment (fine 500,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly adopted by the court below and the court below, although the defendant was obligated to verify whether the defendant was a minor from 10 p.m. to 9 a.m. as the business owner of the scam in the scam, it can be recognized that the defendant did not conduct the identification card inspection only with respect to the friendly Gu of D at the time of the instant case (03:26 p.m.) and asked the age of 5 persons including the remaining scam E, and that it is difficult to find that there was any special circumstance that it is difficult to suspect as a juvenile due to reasons such as cremation at 17 years of age at the time, cremation, appearance, and medicine, etc.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is proper and it is not accepted.

B. The current Criminal Procedure Act, which adopts the trial-oriented principle of unfair sentencing and the principle of directness, determines sentencing.