logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 춘천지방법원 강릉지원 2013.11.12 2013노235
청소년보호법위반
Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

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

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

Reasons

In full view of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the court below acquitted the defendant on the ground that there is no evidence to prove the facts charged. The court below erred by misapprehending the facts, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

Article 26(1) of the former Juvenile Protection Act (wholly amended by Act No. 11048, Sep. 15, 2011) provides that no person shall sell or lease harmful drugs, etc. to juveniles. Article 20(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (wholly amended by Presidential Decree No. 24102, Sep. 14, 2012) provides that “any person who intends to sell or distribute harmful drugs, etc. to juveniles pursuant to Article 26(1) of the Act shall confirm the age of the other person.”

In light of the contents of these regulations and the legislative intent of the Juvenile Protection Act, the employers and employees of business establishments that sell harmful substances to juveniles are given strict responsibilities to comply with the above provisions for the protection of juveniles.

Therefore, unless there is any circumstance that it is objectively difficult to doubt the person as a juvenile, the person's age should be confirmed based on resident registration certificate or evidence with public probative value of age to the extent similar to that of the person who entered the age group which is likely to be a juvenile.

If a business owner or employee did not take any action to confirm the age in violation of the duty to verify the age, barring any special circumstance, dolusent intent of the crime of violating the Juvenile Protection Act due to a violation of the said provision is recognized to at least for the business owner or employee (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2006Do3713, Jul. 27, 2006; 2003Do8039, Apr. 23, 2004). The following circumstances recognized by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court are the following.

arrow