2. The lower court found the Defendant not guilty on the ground that the evidence alone submitted by the prosecution on the facts charged that the Defendant provided the beer to the customer E, etc. in a singing practice room is insufficient to recognize the facts charged.

3. We affirm the lower court’s determination that, in light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court, it is difficult to readily conclude that the F, a traffic police officer, was capable of discerning it, since it is difficult to conclude that the F, considering the characteristics of alcoholic beverages sold for alcoholic beverages, which are similar to those of alcoholic beverages, was likely to be mistaken for alcoholic beverages, and ② the fact that the customer E, etc., was unable to memory the marina fact at the time, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to acknowledge the facts charged.

4. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that it is without merit.