Defendant shall be punished by a fine of one million won.

If the defendant fails to pay the above fine, 50,000 won shall be one day.

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is a person who actually operates an entertainment drinking house, which is a juvenile harmful business establishment, under the trade name of "E under the ground of the Delel Building in Gangwon-gu, Gangwon-do."

The owner of a business establishment harmful to juveniles shall not employ a juvenile, but the same year from March 15, 2012.

3. Until December 26, 200, a juvenile, who was found to have been aged and worked in the above entertainment tavern, did not confirm the age of F (the age of 16 and remaining) and agreed to the remuneration of KRW 300,000 per month, and was employed as an employee of the above entertainment tavern.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Partial statement of witness G;

1. Statement made by a witness F in the fourth trial record;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes governing partial statements made by F and G police officers;

1. Article 50 Subparag. 2 of the former Juvenile Protection Act (amended by Act No. 11048, Sept. 15, 201; hereinafter “former Juvenile Protection Act”) and Articles 24(1) of the former Juvenile Protection Act (amended by Act No. 11048, Sept. 15, 201);

1. Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. The defendant and his defense counsel asserted that the defendant and his defense counsel's assertion of the provisional payment order under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act are not acknowledged since the F, an employee, was aware that he was not a minor.

Article 24 (1) of the former Juvenile Protection Act provides that "the owner of a business establishment harmful to juveniles shall confirm their age when he intends to employ a juvenile and shall not employ a juvenile," and Article 50 (2) of the same Act provides that "a person who employs a juvenile to a business establishment harmful to juveniles in violation of Article 24 (1) of the same Act shall be punished." In light of the above provision of the Act and the legislative intent of the former Juvenile Protection Act, the owner of a business establishment harmful to juveniles such as entertainment taverns shall not employ a juvenile to protect the juvenile.