Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 700,000.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant is a person who installs 45 tables on a scale of about 80 square meters in Bupyeong-gu Incheon, Incheon, and operates a restaurant for “E”.

The above E is a juvenile harmful business establishment that prepares and sells alcoholic beverages, such as liquor and soup, while running a business from 2 p.m. to 6 a.m. on the following day.

The owner of a business harmful to juveniles shall not employ juveniles.

Nevertheless, the Defendant, from the end of December 2014 to the end of March 7, 2015, employed four female juveniles, such as youth F (16 years old), and two male juveniles as employees, on the above E, which is a business establishment banned from employing juveniles who mainly prepare and sell alcoholic beverages from around the end of March 7, 2015.

Summary of Evidence

1. Each legal statement of witness G and H;

1. Application of the respective laws and regulations of I, G, H, J and K

1. Article 58 of the relevant Act and Articles 58 subparagraph 4 and 29 (1) of the Juvenile Protection Act, the selection of fines for criminal facts, and the selection of fines;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act concerning the order of provisional payment;

1. The main text of Article 186(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act (the defendant and his defense counsel) states that even if the defendant was a juvenile from a police officer, the defendant's act does not constitute a crime since it does not constitute a crime since the defendant's act in this case does not constitute a crime since he received a written consent of his guardian's employment from

Although it was believed that there was a justifiable reason to believe that the defendant was not guilty, according to the above evidence, there was no evidence to acknowledge that the defendant respondeded to the above talks from the police officer, and the defendant, rather, acknowledged that the police had been engaged in employee training for the young employees in E prior to the crackdown, and the defendant and the defense counsel's above assertion cannot be accepted.

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.