The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal 1) The Defendant: (a) was unable to prevent adult H’s resident registration number; (b) was found to have been employed by the Defendant with the belief that E was an adult due to the condition of cremation at the time; and (c) thus, the Defendant did not have any criminal intent to commit a crime of violating the Juvenile Protection Act.

2) The sentence of the lower court (an amount of KRW 700,000) that is unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. 1) In light of the legislative purpose of the Juvenile Protection Act regarding the assertion of misunderstanding of facts, the employer of a business harmful to juveniles has a very strict responsibility for not employing juveniles in the business in question for the protection of juveniles.

Therefore, when a business owner of a juvenile harmful business place employs an employee, he/she should confirm the age of the employee based on his/her resident registration certificate or evidence of public probative value of his/her age.

If the subject is unable to comply with the age verification on the ground that he/she lost or did not cause any loss of his/her identification card, it is necessary to withhold or reject the subject’s age until he/she can be verified clearly by public certification in light of the fact that the juvenile’s status and age is reduced and his/her employment is reduced.

Therefore, there was a willful negligence in regard to the employment of juveniles to employers who have employed them without fulfilling such duty to verify the age of juveniles.

We can see (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2002Do2425, Jun. 28, 2002; 2006Do477, Mar. 23, 2006). The evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below is acknowledged as follows.

(1) The Defendant stated at the lower court and the investigative agency that he did not receive any identification card to verify the age of E, and even E.