logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2013.08.08 2013노1775
청소년보호법위반
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. In light of the circumstances such as physical strength and appearance of E and F (hereinafter “E, etc.”) as a juvenile of the gist of the grounds for appeal, the speech and behavior under the influence of alcohol on the day of the instant case, and the Defendant’s act and behavior under the influence of alcohol, if the Defendant knew that he was a juvenile, he did not report them to the police. The Defendant was deemed to have failed to recognize that E, etc. was a juvenile on the day of the instant case. However, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the

2. Determination

A. In light of the legislative intent of the Juvenile Protection Act, the employers and employees of establishments banned from accessing juveniles are given a very strict responsibility not to admit juveniles to such establishments for the purpose of protecting juveniles.

Therefore, barring any special circumstance, the owner or employee of a business establishment prohibited from allowing access to juveniles shall verify the age of the relevant juvenile based on resident registration certificates or evidence with public probative value of age sufficient to the extent of age for persons with access to the age group that is likely to be juveniles, unless there are any circumstances that make it difficult to doubt the persons with access objectively (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 93Do2914, Jan. 14, 1994; 2002Do2425, Jun. 28, 2002). If a juvenile enters the relevant business establishment due to his/her violation of the duty of age verification and fails to take any measures for age verification, barring any special circumstance, the owner or employee of the business establishment shall be deemed to have do negligence in the crime of violating the Juvenile Protection Act due to the violation of the above legal provisions.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Do8039, Apr. 23, 2004)

B. The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court (i.e., the entertainment bars of Defendant’s operation (hereinafter “instant entertainment bars”) enter the entertainment bars of Defendant’s operation and drink drinking, and F is less than E.

arrow