beta
Text
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is as follows: (a) although the Defendant, who was engaged in alcoholic beverage sales business with the employee C on the day of the crime, was aware that F et al. was a juvenile, the Defendant sold alcohol to F et al., the lower court acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged in this case;
2. Determination
A. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case and the Defendant are the employees of the bar bar in the trade name, “E main store (hereinafter “instant main store”) which is a juvenile establishment with the third floor of the D Building in Ansan-si.”
The owner or employee of a business establishment subject to prohibition of access by and employment of juveniles shall verify the age of access by juveniles and shall prohibit juveniles from entering the business establishment, and no one shall sell alcoholic beverages harmful to juveniles to juveniles. On January 20, 2014, C and the Defendant entered the business establishment at around 20:10, without verifying the age of five juveniles, such as youth F, etc. on January 20, 2014, and sold ice flads such as kids, kids, cream, etc., which are harmful to juveniles at KRW 69,00,00.
B. The lower court determined as follows, i.e., the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court: ① Juvenile F, G, and H entered the main points of this case at the time of the instant case and subsequently the Juvenile I and J went to the main points of this case; ② A person who received an order from F, G, and H was a worker of the main points of this case; ③ the Defendant was not an employee of the main points of this case; ③ the Defendant was not an employee of the instant main points of this case; and the Defendant went to the main points of this case in order to keep K, who had worked as the manager of the main points of the instant case on the day of the instant case; and ④ after I and J entered the main points of this case, I and J inspected inspected the identification card at the request of K and J; ④ The Defendant demanded I and J to present the identification card.