The defendant is a person who operates 'C' general restaurants in Mineyang City B.

No one shall sell alcoholic beverages that are drugs harmful to juveniles to juveniles.

Nevertheless, around 01:00 on December 11, 2017, the Defendant sold to D, a juvenile who had been a customer under the above “C”, the following: (a) 2 knick-ju 2 disease and knick-ju 2 knick-ju (200CC) to 64,000 won, without confirming his age by identification card, etc.; and (b) 2 knick-ju 200 won.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of witness D, E, and F;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on control field photographs;

1. Article 59 subparagraph 6 of the Act on the Punishment of Crimes and Article 28 (1) of the Act on the Protection of Juveniles Eligible for the Selection of Punishment;

1. A fine not exceeding 500,000 won to be suspended;

1. Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act (100,00 won per day) of the Criminal Act for the inducement of a workhouse;

1. The portion not guilty under Article 59 (1) of the Criminal Act (including the fact that the defendant confirms his age by means of identification cards, photographs, etc. on his/her cell phone instead of the original identification card, a partial acquittal is pronounced, and there is no record of punishment for the same crime);

1. The summary of the facts charged charged is that G, a juvenile who had been a customer at a place, did not verify the age due to the date and time of the crime, identification card, etc., and sold to G, an alcoholic beverage, 200, 200, 64,000 won, along with 2 mazin and 2 mazin.

2. The G investigative agency and this court have the statements as evidence that correspond to the facts charged in this part of the judgment.

However, the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, namely, ① the Defendant inspected the identification card to G, ② the Defendant was unable to sell the defective alcoholic beverages without any identification card, and G went out of it, and consistently asserted that G offered alcoholic beverages after citing and verifying the identification card, ② G also inspected the first identification card in the investigative agency and this court.