The Defendant sold “tobacco under the Tobacco Business Act”, which is a drug harmful to juveniles, as defined under Article 2 subparag. 4 (a) 2 of the former Juvenile Protection Act, which is prohibited from selling under Article 28 subparag. 1 (amended by Act No. 14067, Mar. 2, 2016) of the same Act, because the Defendant only sold electronic cigarette equipment and fluor only sold nicotine-culor’s nicotine concentration.

Notwithstanding the fact that it cannot be seen, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged or erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

Judgment

The court below rejected the Defendant’s assertion on the following grounds: (a) whether the Defendant is a juvenile subject to sale; (b) the Defendant alleged to the same effect as the grounds for appeal on this part; and (c) the court below rejected the Defendant’s assertion on detailed facts and circumstances in the part

Examining the records in comparison with the evidence duly examined and adopted by the court below and the court below, the judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and there is an error of law by mistake of facts as alleged by the defendant.

shall not be deemed to exist.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of mistake as to this part is without merit.

In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court as to whether the Defendant sold tobacco (i.e., nicotine concentration) and the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the first instance court, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine as alleged in the grounds of appeal, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

subsection (b) of this section.

Witness

H and G have purchased both the nicotine concentration together with electronic cigarette equipment and flavoring (e.g.) in the court of the first instance.