A. On September 7, 2013, when the F was visited the restaurant operated by the Defendant, the Defendant: (a) examined the F’s identification card and confirmed the F’s age; and (b) according to the F’s identification card presented at the time, the F was an adult.

In addition, on September 7, 2013, Defendant inspected F’s identification card on the same day and confirmed F’s age.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below found the defendant guilty, and the judgment of the court below is erroneous in misconception of facts.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (the fine of KRW 500,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court regarding the assertion of mistake of facts, the fact that the Defendant sold alcoholic beverages to F without verifying the F’s identification card on September 7, 2013 is recognized.

1) At the court of the court below, F stated that “Around September 7, 2013, at the court of the court below, the Defendant did not verify the identification card at EM restaurant operated by the Defendant. At least three to four times prior to that time, F did not inspect the identification card. At first, EM restaurant stated that “I can not inspect the identification card, so we can see that I would be able to leave.” 2) H stated in the court of the court below that “The four identification cards during FF’s daily activities at EM restaurant was inspected at the court of the court of the court below,” but it stated that “I would not suppress” as to whether F’s identification card was inspected at the time.

3) The Defendant stated in the police that “The former is a relative who had been aware of the fact before and completed the identification card inspection, and did not inspect the identification card on the day of the instant case.” 4) The Defendant asserted that F was an adult by conducting an identification card inspection with respect to F prior to the instant day, but the Defendant asserted that F was a witness G, H’s legal statement, G, H, and L preparation.