The sentence of sentence against the defendant shall be suspended.

Punishment of the crime

피고인은 부산 금정구 C 소재 D주점을 운영하는 자로, 누구든지 청소년에게 청소년유해약물을 판매, 대여, 배포, 무상으로 제공하여서는 아니 됨에도 불구하고, 피고인은 2013. 02. 10. 23:45경 위 업소내 손님으로 온 청소년 E(F생) 등 3명에게 연령확인 없이 소주 2병(6,000원)과 닭똥집 1접시(13,000원), 음료수 1병(1,000원) 등 합계 2만 원 상당의 주류를 판매한 것이다.

Summary of Evidence

1. Each legal statement of witness G, H and E;

1. Investigation reports (investigation of juveniles);

1. Application of field photographs and Acts and subordinate statutes on receipts;

1. Article 59 of the Juvenile Protection Act and Articles 59 subparagraph 6 and 28 (1) of the same Act concerning criminal facts and the selection of fines;

1. A fine not exceeding 500,000 won to be suspended;

1. Articles 70 and 69 (2) (50,000 won per day) of the Criminal Act for the inducement of a workhouse;

1. Determination as to the assertion by the Defendant and the defense counsel under Article 59(1) of the Criminal Act (see, e.g., Article 59(1) of the suspended sentence: (a) the identification card of the I is verified; (b) the efforts were made to verify the identity of other juveniles; and (c) the first police officer was mistaken for, and returned to, H and I as adults

1. The Defendant alleged that H, I, E, and J (hereinafter “instant juveniles”) had been the main points of the Defendant’s operation before the instant case, and confirmed his identification card and came to know to adults. Since E, and J were in partnership with the Defendant, the Defendant did not have any awareness that he would sell liquor to “juvenile”. In the end, the Defendant did not have any awareness that he would sell liquor to “Juvenile.”

2. The owner of the business where the person in question sells the judged alcoholic beverages must verify the age of the person in question on the basis of resident registration certificate or other evidence of public probative value of age to the degree of age, unless there are circumstances from an objective point of view that it is difficult to doubt that the person in question is a juvenile, and the owner of the business violates the duty of age verification.