A. The law of Article 16 of the Criminal Act

(b) Whether it constitutes legal mistake that a minor aged 18 years or older should not be allowed to enter because the owner of an entertainment entertainment business is excluded from the control of the police authority.

A. Article 16 of the Criminal Act provides that an act of misunderstanding that one's own act is not a crime under law shall not be punishable only when there is a justifiable ground for misunderstanding. It does not mean a simple case of the site of law, but it is generally an act which constitutes a crime, but in its special circumstances, it is erroneous and misunderstanding that it does not constitute a crime, which is permitted by law, and if there is a justifiable reason, it shall not be punishable.

B. Even if the owner of an entertainment entertainment business was aware that he was excluded from the control target by the police authorities, a minor who is not a high school school student over the age of 18 is allowed to enter the business, this constitutes a simple legal site without knowledge of the provisions of the Minor Protection Act, and it is not a case where the police authorities actively recognized that it is not an act permitted by the law and is not an act permitted by the law, and thus, it cannot be deemed an act due to mistake of the law.

A. Article 16 of the Criminal Act; Articles 6 and 4 of the Protection of Minors Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 4294Do208 delivered on October 5, 1961, 79Do285 delivered on February 12, 1980

Defendant

Prosecutor

Seoul Criminal Court Decision 84No2687 delivered on December 4, 1984

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Panel Division of the Seoul Criminal Court.

The prosecutor's grounds of appeal are examined.

(1) According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance maintained by the court below, the defendant, from around 20:00 on December 23, 1983 to 23:00 on the same day, had ten persons, including the non-indicted 10, who are minors, enter the above Dsc clubs from around 10:00 on December 23, 1983, and sold beer and beer, etc. on the other hand, on April 15, 1983, the court below found that the defendant, at the Kscco clubs held by the Kscco clubs, had 18 years old or older or college students, who were minors, had been aware of the fact that he had not entered the above Dscco clubs and sold them to the government of the police station, and the defendant was aware of the fact that he had no legitimate relation between the non-indicted 1 and the non-indicted 18 years old or older student and that he had no legitimate authority to check the fact.

(2) Article 16 of the Criminal Act provides that his act of misunderstanding that his act does not constitute a crime under the law shall not be punishable only when there is a justifiable ground for misunderstanding. This does not mean a simple legal unwritten act. Generally, an act which constitutes a crime but is not a crime under the law in his own special circumstances, and it shall not be punishable in a case where there is a justifiable reason when misunderstanding that his act does not constitute a crime under the law.

In this case, as seen above, the defendant did not know that he is limited to persons under 18 years of age or high school students who are under 20 years of age, and all minors under 20 years of age fall under the category of the law, and thus, this constitutes a simple site of law. Since so-called the defendant's so-called is not a crime which is permitted by the law and actively recognized, it does not constitute a crime, it does not interfere with the establishment of the crime. Furthermore, as long as Article 4 (1) and (2) of the Act on the Protection of Minors is violated, the police authorities excluded minors under 18 years of age or older, who are not high school students, from the object of the access control of minors' entertainment establishments at the time of the time, and it cannot be said that it affects the establishment of the crime. Thus, it cannot be said that there is a justifiable reason to believe that the defendant believed that the defendant was not in conflict with the law, and therefore, it cannot be said that the judgment of the court below which found the defendant not guilty due to an error under Article 16 of the Criminal Act.

Therefore, the judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Jong-sik (Presiding Justice)