On July 3, 2016, at around 06:30 on July 3, 2016, the Defendant sold to juvenile E (V, 17 years of age), F (n, 16 years of age), a juvenile-related juvenile-related juvenile-related juvenile-related juvenile-related juvenile-related juvenile-related juvenile-related juvenile-related juvenile-related juvenile-related juvenile-related juvenile-related drug.

2. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court of this case, the fact that the defendant was provided as a juvenile in the "D" restaurant with the head of the business division, E and F, is recognized.

However, in full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, it is insufficient to recognize that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone, while recognizing the fact that the defendant was a juvenile, the defendant directly provided it to the defendant, or that the defendant, while other employees of D provided it to E and F, the defendant impliedly provided it to the above employee with the knowledge that the defendant was a juvenile.

(1) E/F did not undergo an identification card inspection in police investigations, as they receive parcels of lawsuit from D.

The testimony was made by F in this court, and F testified with the above contents.

On the other hand, upon the first examination date of the witness examination in this court, E had “at the time D inspected other employee than the defendant, and F had in advance the employee.

The author presented his identification card and stated that he was “I lost his identification card as a relative,” and that he was provided with a lawsuit by an employee. In the police investigation, the police did not examine his identification card to prevent the friendly F from being punished due to the act of presenting another person’s identification card.

Although this Court made a false statement, the identification card was inspected in D at the time.