2014 fixed-term208 Violation of the Juvenile Protection Act

A (58 years, inn), and operation of Kindos

Modern Day (Lawsuits) and Kim Customs (Trial)

Attorney Choi Yong-il (Korean National Assembly)

September 18, 2015

The defendant shall be innocent.

1. The facts charged in this case

The defendant is a person who operates a general restaurant in the trade name of "B" from Ulsan-gun, Ulsan-gun, ○○○○.

No person shall sell drugs, etc. harmful to juveniles to juveniles.

Nevertheless, around September 28, 2014, at around 201: 20, the Defendant sold three soldiers a week to three of the above restaurants, including Kim-○ ( South, 18 years old) a juvenile.

2. Determination

A. In order for a restaurant operator to constitute a "act of selling alcoholic beverages such as liquors to juveniles" under Article 59 subparagraph 6 of the Juvenile Protection Act, the act of selling alcoholic beverages such as liquors to the multiple persons who entered the restaurant was included in the cleaning year at the time when they were granted alcohol to the restaurant operator, and the restaurant operator should have been aware of it. Thus, in case where a restaurant operator last 20 years after drinking alcohol and drinking alcoholic beverages after drinking alcohol, the restaurant operator was at the time of drinking alcohol, but the restaurant operator was at the time of drinking alcohol, and it was at the time of the last cleaning, or there was a circumstance that it was predicted that the restaurant operator last 20 years after drinking alcohol, or the restaurant operator was at the time of drinking alcohol, even if the youth was at the time of drinking, the restaurant operator cannot be said to have sold alcoholic beverages to juveniles even if the youth was at the time of drinking alcohol, and even if the youth was at the time of drinking alcohol, the restaurant operator cannot be said to have been at the time of drinking alcohol (see Supreme Court Decision 200Do480.

B. According to each legal statement of the Ministry of Health and Welfare, witness, Kim **, Kim Kim *, Kim Kim Kim *, Kim Ma * Kim Ma Ma Ma Ma Ma Ma, the right that adult Kim Kim Kim Ma Ma Ma Ma is known to Kim Kim Ma Ma **, Kim * this restaurant * right ** * and Kim * * * Ma Ma Ma Ma Ma Ma, who paid the cost of food and drink to the above restaurant and paid the cost of food and beverage, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that the defendant paid additional food and beverage to the defendant * * * *, Kim * * * Ma Ma, there is no other evidence to acknowledge that the defendant paid additional food and beverage in this case.

Thus, the facts charged in this case constitute a case where there is no proof of crime, and thus, the defendant is acquitted under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Judges Dok-ju