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

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 50,000 won.

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is an employee from the C convenience store in Geumcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government as an employee.

No one shall sell drugs harmful to juveniles, etc. to juveniles.

Nevertheless, at around 22:17 on October 3, 2013, the Defendant sold to D(the age of 16) a juvenile as a tobacco package, which is a drug harmful to juveniles, an amount equivalent to the sum of 81,000 won per 1 Mad-amp.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of witness D;

1. A protocol concerning the interrogation of suspects of E;

1. Application of CCTV video recording data-faging photographs and Acts and subordinate statutes governing C convenience store receipts;

1. Relevant legal provisions concerning facts constituting an offense, and Articles 59 subparagraph 6 and 28 (1) of the Juvenile Protection Act which choose a penalty;

1. Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. As to the Defendant’s assertion under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, the Defendant alleged that D, a juvenile, purchased tobacco at the convenience store of C where D had been working for the Defendant, and confirmed that D was not a juvenile, and that D was not a juvenile, the Defendant would not separately request D to present his/her identification card at the time of the instant crime. Thus, D, although the Defendant was requested to present his/her identification card in this court, it is argued that D purchased tobacco as it did not require the Defendant to present his/her identification card thereafter. The Defendant also stated that D would have been required to present his/her identification card at the time of the police investigation, but the other people could be confused with D, and thus, it is not clearly memory as to whether the Defendant requested to present his/her identification card. Accordingly, the above assertion by the Defendant is rejected since there is no other evidence to acknowledge the Defendant’s statement in this court that the Defendant clearly inspected his/her identification card.