Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,000,000.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is a person who operates 'D' general restaurants in Yangju City.

No one shall sell, lend, distribute, or provide free of charge juveniles drugs harmful to juveniles, etc.

At around 00:20 on December 3, 2015, the Defendant sold a small-scale alcoholic beverage, which is a harmful drug to juveniles, without verifying the age of juvenile E (the age of 15, female) that entered the above D around 00:20.

Summary of Evidence

1. Each legal statement of witness E, F, G, and H;

1. He asserts that at the time of the instant case, the Defendant had no criminal intent to commit a crime of violating the Juvenile Protection Act since the Defendant visited and confirmed his identification card when he first visited and confirmed his identification card, and that at the time of the instant case, the Defendant had no criminal intent to commit a crime of violating the Juvenile Protection Act. In other words, in the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence of the judgment, E only shows the Defendant’s identification card during his her her friencing course in the Philippines in this court, and that there was no fact that the Defendant had confirmed his identification card (the said student card alone cannot be confirmed).

(2) Prior to the instant case, G visited the instant restaurant more than twice, stating that there was no fact that the Defendant had inspected the identification card of E in the police and in this court (However, H present with E and G only demanded the identification card from the police and did not inspect the identification card to E, while the court stated to the effect that the Defendant was not aware of the demand for identification card to E in this court.

In full view of the fact that F visited the restaurant of this case with E at the time of this case stated that the Defendant did not have inspected the identification card of E at the time of this court, and that there is no objective evidence supporting the Defendant’s assertion that E forged the identification card, the Defendant’s assertion that the Defendant confirmed the identification card was confirmed.