The defendant is innocent. The summary of this judgment shall be notified publicly.

1. The gist of the facts charged is that the Defendant is a person who operates the main points of “D” in Seo-gu, Gwangju, and no person may sell or lend to juveniles drugs harmful to juveniles.

B. On December 13, 2016, the Defendant sold “Esl’s Esl’s Esl’s E (18 taxes)” a drug harmful to juveniles without verifying the age at the above main point on December 13, 2016.

2. Determination

A. In order for a person operating a restaurant to constitute a "act of selling alcoholic beverages to juveniles" under Article 51 subparagraph 8 of the former Juvenile Protection Act (amended by Act No. 11048, Sep. 15, 201), a restaurant operator should have known that a juvenile was included in the day and the restaurant operator was aware of the fact at the time when he/she puts the alcoholic beverages to the restaurant. Thus, if a person who was operating a restaurant sells alcoholic beverages to many people who were entering the restaurant, the restaurant operator was able to expect that the juvenile would be able to do so later, or where a juvenile was able to do so after being aware that he/she was able to do so, the restaurant operator did not have a part of the alcoholic beverages remaining at the time when he/she puts the alcoholic beverages to the restaurant.

Even if the restaurant operator did an act of selling alcoholic beverages to juveniles;

Nor can it be said (see Supreme Court Decision 2001Do4069, Oct. 9, 2001). Such a legal doctrine applies likewise to cases where a prosecutor interpreted the meaning of “a person who sells drugs harmful to juveniles” under Article 59 subparag. 6 of the Juvenile Protection Act, which is stipulated in the applicable law of this case.

B. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by this Court, such as E’s legal statement, in the instant case, E, F, the main point of this case operated by the Defendant around December 13, 2016.