The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is as follows: (a) if the defendant was released to the restaurant operated by the defendant (hereinafter “the restaurant of this case”) before the juvenile D and E (hereinafter “D, etc.”) as stated in the facts charged of this case, the defendant was aware that he was adultly aware of his resident registration certificate that was written as the birth in 1997; and (b) the defendant was acting together with H(1997 birth), which was on the day of this case, and did not conduct an identification card inspection; and (c) the defendant was unaware of the fact that he was a juvenile, there was no intention to commit the crime of violation of the Juvenile Protection Act.

2. Determination

A. Article 28(1) and (3) of the Juvenile Protection Act prohibits a person from selling, lending, distributing, or offering harmful drugs to juveniles without compensation (Article 28(1) and (3) of the said Act imposes a duty on a dealer of harmful drugs to juveniles to verify the age of the other party (Article 28(1) and (3). In light of the aforementioned provisions and legislative purpose, a person who sells harmful drugs to juveniles, such as alcoholic beverages, imposes a very heavy responsibility for not selling such drugs to juveniles. In the event that the sale of drugs is objectively deemed difficult for the purchaser to doubt as a juvenile, barring special circumstances, the other party’s age should be verified based on resident registration certificate or evidence with public probative value of age to the degree that it is similar to that of his/her resident registration certificate. If a business owner or employee purchases harmful drugs due to his/her failure to take any measures to verify age, barring special circumstances, at least the intention of the violation of the Juvenile Protection Act due to the violation of the said Act by a business owner or employee (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Do384.