[1] Where an employee commissioned by the owner of a business establishment harmful to juveniles employs a juvenile in connection with the business, whether the employee and the owner of the business are subject to Article 50 subparagraph 2 of the Juvenile Protection Act (affirmative)

[2] Details of the duty required to verify the age in employing entertainment workers by the owner of a business establishment banned from employing juveniles

[1] Article 24(1), Article 50 subparag. 2, and Article 54 of the Juvenile Protection Act / [2] Article 24(1) and Article 50 subparag. 2 of the Juvenile Protection Act

[1] Supreme Court en banc Decision 95Do2870 delivered on July 15, 199 (Gong199Ha, 1696) Supreme Court Decision 2004Do74 delivered on May 14, 2004 (Gong2004Ha, 1101) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 2002Do363 delivered on October 25, 2002

Defendant

Defendant

Jeonju District Court Decision 2005No80 decided August 12, 2005

The appeal is dismissed.

1. Article 50 subparag. 2 of the Juvenile Protection Act and Article 24(1) of the same Act provide that the business owner of a business establishment harmful to juveniles who employs juveniles shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for not more than three years or by a fine not exceeding 20 million won, and Article 54 of the same Act (Joint Penal Provisions) provides that if an agent, employee, or other worker of an individual commits a crime under Article 50 of the same Act in connection with the business of the individual, not only shall the offender be punished, but also the individual shall be punished by a fine under each relevant Article. The above joint penal provision aims to punish both the offender and the business owner in order to secure effectiveness of the penal provision (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 95Do2870, Jul. 15, 199; Supreme Court Decision 2004Do74, May 14, 2004). If an employee delegated by a business owner of a business establishment harmful to juveniles has employed a juvenile in connection with the business of the individual, both the employee and the business owner shall be punished.

The court below found the defendant guilty by applying the above joint penal provisions, after recognizing the fact that the non-indicted, an employee of an entertainment drinking club operated by the defendant, employed a juvenile who was introduced by the news report room twice in order to encourage the interests of customers, and found the defendant guilty by applying the above joint penal provisions. In light of the above legal principles and records, the court below's above fact-finding and decision are just and acceptable, and there were no errors in the misapprehension of legal principles as to employment under the Juvenile Protection Act or the violation of law as to the interpretation and application of Article 54 of the Juvenile Protection Act, as

2. In light of the legislative purpose of the Juvenile Protection Act, the employer of a business establishment harmful to juveniles, such as entertainment tavern, shall not employ a juvenile for the purpose of protecting the juvenile. As such, the employer of an entertainment bar business, when employing an employee at the relevant entertainment bar business, shall verify the age of the juvenile on the basis of resident registration certificate or other evidence of public probative value of age to the extent similar thereto. If it is not easy to confirm the age of the juvenile on the ground that the person lost his/her identification card, etc., the employer shall withhold or refuse the employment until he/she can verify his/her status and age by public certification (see Supreme Court Decisions 2002Do363, Oct. 25, 2002; 2004Do255, Apr. 28, 2004, etc.).

Examining the above legal principles and the evidence adopted by the court below in light of the records, the court below's decision that the non-indicted did not have an intentional act unless the non-indicted did perform his duty of age verification in employing the above juveniles properly is justified and there is no error of law such as misconception of facts due to violation of the rules of evidence as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.

3. In this case where a fine is imposed on the defendant, the ground that the sentence imposed by the court below is excessive cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal.

4. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Yong-dam (Presiding Justice)