logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 의정부지방법원 2016.06.16 2016고정804
청소년보호법위반
Text

A defendant shall be punished by a fine of 500,000 won.

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

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant is an employee who delivers in the general restaurant called "E" in the Gangwon Iron-gun D.

No one shall sell or lend to juveniles alcoholic beverages that are drugs harmful to juveniles for profit.

Nevertheless, the Defendant, on November 30, 2015, delivered alcoholic beverages to the juvenile G ( South, 97 years old), and H (n, 01 years old) who delivered food at around 21:00 G apartment units F apartment units Ra, Gangwon-gu, Gangwon-gu, Gangwon-gun, 100 won, which are harmful to juveniles, and sold alcoholic beverages to the juvenile G (n, 97 years old), and H (n, 01 year old), without verifying the age by presenting an identification card.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. G and I written statements;

1. An explanatory note and a report on the control of place of business concerned;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes concerning field photographs;

1. Article 59 Subparag. 6 of the former Juvenile Protection Act (amended by Act No. 14067, Mar. 2, 2016); Articles 28(1) and 28(1) of the same Act regarding criminal facts; the choice of fines

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. Determination on the assertion by the Defendant and his defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. Comprehensively taking account of the fact that G’s voice ordering the gist of the assertion took place in the voice of adult male, and that H from receiving food, etc. was an adult, and the Defendant was delivered even before the instant case, but at that time, he was living in the adult, and as a matter of course, he thought that H’s father was ordered due to the late time, and that there was the voice of adult male in the ward at the time of the instant case, there was no intention to commit a violation of the Juvenile Protection Act at the time, and there was no possibility for the Defendant to expect the confirmation of his identification card.

2. In light of the purport, content, etc. of the Juvenile Protection Act, liquor owners, etc. who sell alcoholic beverages that are harmful to juveniles, such as the instant liquor, should not sell alcoholic beverages to juveniles for the purpose of protecting juveniles.

arrow