logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 창원지방법원 통영지원 2017.05.19 2016고정577
청소년보호법위반
Text

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

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

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is a person who operates a general restaurant with the trade name of F in E at the time of show.

No person shall sell, lend, distribute, or provide free of charge drugs, etc. harmful to juveniles to juveniles.

Nevertheless, on August 25, 2016, at around 00:15, the Defendant did not verify the age of G (the 98-years) of a juvenile in the above restaurant that he operated, and sold 2 sick and Puju 3 sick and Puju 2 Byung(the 98-years) of a juvenile harmful to juveniles (the 1 sick and Cheongpodo 2C).

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Protocols of examination of the witness to G (part of the protocol of second public trial);

1. A protocol concerning the examination of suspect of some police officers against the accused (including the G statement);

1. A certificate of business report and a copy of the control report on a business place;

1. On-site table photographs, CCTV images, and closure photographs;

1. A CD ( CCTV images with F main points);

1. Investigation report (a CCTV image analysis and attachment within the F main point) (the defendant and his defense counsel verified the identity card G;

Although denying the crime, G consistently states from the investigative agency to the present court that “no person has verified his identity card,” G does not have any circumstance to make a false statement in order to mislead the Defendant, and CCTV installed within the F week does not completely record the confirmation of the Defendant’s identity card of G until he was provided with the main liquor ordered by G. According to the above CCTV images, H is confirmed to cross-sections of G, but H does not record part of H’s behavior G, which was confirmed by the time when he was carrying out the above table and CCTV images, and the specific behavior of employees H was not recorded in CCTV as CCTV.

In light of the above, H. G.

arrow