2. In light of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the following circumstances: (i) D visited a restaurant working for the defendant as an employee at the court of the court below several times; (ii) requested the defendant to present an identification card on the first day of the order of drinking; and (iii) stated that he visited the above restaurant at the court of the court of the court of the court to show his identification card to another person (the 1998 student) who was in possession of his house; and (iv) stated that he first visited the restaurant at the court of the court of the court of the court of the court of the case to show his identification card; and (iv) the F first visited the restaurant at the court of the court of the court of the court of the case to present his identification card; and (v) the defendant demanded to present his identification card on the day of this case to the court of the court of the court of the court of the first time, and there is no error in the misapprehension of facts as alleged by the prosecutor; and (iv) there is no error in the misapprehension of facts as alleged by the public prosecutor.

Therefore, prosecutor's assertion is without merit.

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