Owner argues minors' deception qualifies as exemption from administrative penalty

Court rules age-verification duty was not fulfilled

First-instance ruling stands; 700,000-won summary order also confirmed

Image generated using Gemini. The image is not directly related to the article.
Image generated using Gemini. The image is not directly related to the article.

A court has ruled that a two-month business suspension imposed on a restaurant owner who sold alcohol to minors — who presented a stolen ID and Kakao digital certificates — was lawful, finding that the owner had not fulfilled his duty to verify customers' ages.

Judge Yoo Young-hwa of the Seoul Administrative Court's Administrative Division 11 ruled against the restaurant owner, identified only as A, on Sept. 19 in a lawsuit A filed against the district mayor seeking to overturn the two-month suspension. A was also ordered to bear the litigation costs.

The case dates to last October, when A was caught selling alcohol to seven minors at his restaurant around 10 p.m.

A had conducted some form of age check at the time. One of the seven minors showed A an ID belonging to the minor's adult older brother as if it were his own, while the remaining six presented Kakao digital certificates on their phones showing their dates of birth.

The district office issued the two-month suspension in December last year in connection with the sale of alcohol to the seven minors. The penalty took into account two prior suspensions A had received for separately providing alcohol to minors.

After receiving the suspension, A filed a lawsuit in April this year.

During the trial, A's side argued that while alcohol had been sold to the minors, this was because the minors had stolen an adult's ID. The defense said the minors' active deception constituted grounds for exemption from administrative punishment.

Under the Food Sanitation Act, a business owner who sells alcohol to minors may be exempt from administrative penalties if it is recognized that the owner was unaware of or unable to confirm the customers' minor status due to the forgery or alteration of identification documents.

A also argued that the restaurant was his sole means of livelihood, and that the harm caused by the suspension outweighed the public interest it sought to achieve — amounting to an abuse of discretionary authority.

Court rejects exemption claim, upholds suspension

A court building. [Herald Business DB]
A court building. [Herald Business DB]

The court rejected A's arguments, finding that the case did not meet the criteria for exemption and that the two-month suspension did not constitute an abuse of discretionary authority.

The court said that at the time of the violation, A had only checked the age shown on the stolen ID and had not taken additional verification steps, such as carefully comparing the photo on the ID with the person in front of him or asking the individual to recite the resident registration number on the document.

The court said it was more reasonable to conclude that the minor had simply used a stolen ID and that A had mistakenly believed the customer was an adult due to inadequate verification — not that A had been left with no choice but to conclude the minor and the person in the ID were the same individual. The court added that A could not be considered to have fulfilled the age-verification duty required under the Youth Protection Act.

Regarding the remaining six minors, the court said A had only checked Kakao digital certificates stored on their phones showing dates of birth, without taking any other steps to confirm their identities. It said a Kakao certificate is merely a verification tool operated by a private company, and that checking it alone was not sufficient to satisfy the age-verification obligation.

The court also rejected A's claim that the suspension represented an abuse of discretion.

The court said the violation could not be regarded as the result of minor carelessness or error, and that the Food Sanitation Act exists to protect minors from harmful environments — a public interest that could not be considered lighter than the disadvantage suffered by A.

The ruling is now final. A did not appeal the first-instance decision.

A also received a criminal penalty in connection with the case. In January, A was issued a summary order of 700,000 won ($515) on charges of violating the Youth Protection Act. A summary order is a criminal procedure in which a court reaches a decision based solely on submitted documents without holding a separate trial; prosecutors seek such an order when they determine a fine is more appropriate than imprisonment. The order can be converted to a full trial if the court finds the summary procedure inappropriate or if either party contests it, but A's summary order was confirmed as issued.


notstrong@heraldcorp.com