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

The defendant is a person who operates a general restaurant in the name of "D" in Daejeon Dong-gu, Daejeon.

No one shall sell drugs harmful to juveniles or provide them free of charge to juveniles.

Nevertheless, at around 20:40 on March 22, 2014, the Defendant sold the total amount of KRW 26,000, including one illness of 1 soldier(bebbebbebbes) and two beer poles(bebbes), which are drugs harmful to juveniles, to two persons, such as E (n and 18 years of age).

Summary of Evidence

1. Each legal statement of witness E and F;

1. Application of statutes on site photographs;

1. Article 59 of the Juvenile Protection Act and Articles 59 subparagraph 6 and 28 (1) of the same Act concerning criminal facts and the selection of fines;

1. Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. Judgment on the assertion by the Defendant and the defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The alleged defendant did not provide alcohol to E and F, and confirmed that he was not a juvenile before.

2. In light of the judgment, E and F consistently made a statement from investigative agencies to this court that the Defendant brought alcohol, and E and F have been running by the Defendant for drinking time. However, there seems to be no reason to drink in the Defendant’s knowledge.

In addition, the defendant examined the identification card before E and F, and argued that he was aware that he had a forged adult identification card, but F was only the D of the defendant's operation at the time, and E did not have a forged identification card.

In addition, E made a statement that the Defendant did not examine the identification card even before, and if the Defendant was aware that he would have to examine the identification card, it would be difficult to say that he would not attempt to drink by doing so even to D in the operation of the Defendant located in F and located.

Therefore, the above argument is without merit.

The reason for sentencing is that the defendant is suspended from indictment for the same crime in 2013.