2. The judgment of the court below also asserted the same purport as the grounds for appeal in this part.

The court below found the following facts in its reasoning based on the evidence adopted at the end of "the summary of evidence", i.e., the trademark location or can color of "CAS LIGHT" in the witness F of the court below, but at the time, there was no regulation except for the sale of alcoholic beverages in the singing practice place. If the defendant sold the can cans to customers, such as the defendant's assertion, it is possible to distinguish whether the cans can be seen as ordinary beer or not, so it could be confirmed by presenting cans to F and presenting cans to the scene without any need for voluntary accompanying even before the police box. Accordingly, it appears that the defendant laid the can cans before the police box at the scene and the defendant did not secure evidence or photographs of the cans at the scene, but after the order of the court below, the witness of the court below did not hold that the defendant sold the beer and the defendant sold the cans to the public.

In full view of the consistent statements, the witness F’s legal statement that confirmed that the former site was a beer cans in general is credibility.

Considering that the defendant can fully recognize the fact that he sold alcoholic beverages to E, etc. as stated in its reasoning.

The above argument was rejected.

In light of the records, the above judgment of the court below is just, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion.