logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대법원 2014.04.10 2014도1008
청소년보호법위반
Text

The appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

The grounds of appeal are examined.

Article 26-2 Subparag. 2 of the former Juvenile Protection Act (amended by Act No. 11048, Sept. 15, 201; hereinafter the “Act”) provides that no one shall allow a juvenile to drink with a customer for profit or to provide entertainment services by singing or dancing, etc., or assist a juvenile to do such acts. Considering that the legislative purport of the Act is to protect juveniles from various harmful environments including harmful acts so that juveniles can grow into a healthy person, it is not explicitly provided for a duty of age verification as provided for in Article 24(2) of the Act with respect to the act of inducing a juvenile to provide entertainment services, even though the legislative purport of the Act does not stipulate a duty of age verification as to the act of allowing a juvenile to provide entertainment services, if any circumstance exists to suspect that a juvenile is a person to provide entertainment services by external appearance or tea, etc., a juvenile harmful to the juvenile establishment, and that a juvenile has to provide entertainment services by confirming whether the juvenile is a juvenile or not by way of his/her identification card or other means.

(2) According to the records, the Defendant asserted a mistake of facts that J, K, L, and M did not know about a minor fact at the time of the instant crime, along with the allegation of unfair sentencing in the statement of grounds for appeal, and the Defendant did not clearly withdraw the above argument at the date of the original trial, and the lower court merely rejected the Defendant’s appeal by deeming the Defendant’s grounds for appeal as only the assertion of unfair sentencing, and without determining a mistake of facts, it can be seen that the Defendant dismissed the Defendant’s appeal without determining a mistake of facts.

However, according to the evidence duly adopted by the first instance court maintained by the lower court, the Defendant may be a juvenile at the time of committing the instant crime.

arrow