Since I stated in the court below's statement, it is difficult to believe that I's statement in the court below, and J and K's statement also are hard to believe, according to the above women's statements, it is found guilty of violation of the Juvenile Protection Act against the defendant.

Nevertheless, the court below acquitted the defendant, and there is an error of law by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. The lower court: ① four adult males I et al. first met female youths E et al., which were female youths at the time indicated in the facts charged of the instant case and went into singing to drink to drink; according to CCTV images, it is not confirmed that the Defendant confirmed the identification card presented by the juveniles at the time, and that it was not confirmed whether the juveniles present their identification card; ② Meanwhile, the juveniles received four male identification cards from the above I et al. and displayed them to the Defendant and sent them to singing.

I stated that at the time of the police investigation, I lent the identification card of himself and herself to juveniles at the time of the investigation.

However, I stated that he did not lend his identification card to the juveniles from the investigative agency to the court of the original trial, and that he presented his identification card to each of the juveniles.

At the time of the police investigation in this Court, I also stated that the investigator borrowed his identification card at the time of the police investigation to promptly complete the investigation on the ground that the investigator is not superior to that of the party.

In fact, there is only a statement but no such fact.