The defendant shall be innocent.

1. The summary of the facts charged C and the defendant A are people who are employees of the bar bar in the trade name of "Ezers" (hereinafter referred to as "the main store in this case") which are juvenile access-prohibited places in the three floors of the Dolsan-si, Ansan-si.

The owner or employee of a business establishment subject to prohibition of access by and employment of juveniles must verify the age of access by juveniles and prohibit juveniles from entering the business establishment, and no one shall sell alcoholic beverages, which are harmful to juveniles, to juveniles. On January 20, 2014, C and Defendant A entered the business establishment at around 20:10, without verifying the age of five juveniles, including youth F (17 years of age and remaining). On January 20, 2014, Defendant C and Defendant A sold samina fm, which are harmful to juveniles, to KRW 69,00,00.

2. In order for a person operating a judgment restaurant to constitute “sale of alcoholic beverages to juveniles” under Article 51 subparag. 8 of the Juvenile Protection Act, the act of selling alcoholic beverages, such as alcoholic beverages, to many persons who entered the restaurant constitutes “sale of alcoholic beverages to juveniles.” As such, the juvenile was included in the day and the restaurant operator should have been aware of the act of selling alcoholic beverages to juveniles at the time when he/she provided alcoholic beverages to the restaurant. Thus, in a case where a person who was engaged in the judgment restaurant goes together with a juvenile after holding only an adult seat at the time when he/she provided alcoholic beverages, he/she cannot be deemed to have engaged in the act of selling alcoholic beverages to the juvenile, unless he/she provided additional alcoholic beverages to the juvenile after having consulted the restaurant operator, or the restaurant operator could not be deemed to have engaged in the act of selling alcoholic beverages to the juvenile, even if he/she was found to have been on the part of alcoholic beverages remaining at the time of his/her offering alcoholic beverages.

(See Supreme Court Decisions 2008Do11282 Decided April 9, 2009 and Supreme Court Decision 2001Do4069 Decided October 9, 2001, etc.). Such a legal doctrine is applicable.