A. The Defendant: (a) confirmed the resident registration certificate presented by E; and (b) sold alcoholic beverages by considering E as adults; (c) there was no intention to violate the Juvenile Protection Act.

B. The sentence of the lower court that is unfair in sentencing (one million won in penalty) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In light of the content and legislative purpose of the Juvenile Protection Act, a person who sells a drug harmful to juveniles, such as alcoholic beverages, imposes a very strict liability for not selling it to juveniles. In selling the drug objectively, barring any circumstances that make it difficult for the buyer to doubt as a juvenile, the other party’s age should be confirmed based on resident registration certificate or evidence with public probative value to the degree equivalent thereto. If the business owner and employee purchased a drug harmful to juveniles by failing to take any measures for age verification in violation of the duty of age verification, barring any special circumstance, it is recognized that at least 203Do8039, Apr. 23, 2004; and 2013Do8385, Sept. 27, 2013). In light of the following circumstances, the lower court’s duly admitted and investigated the evidence by taking account of the following circumstances:

Since it is reasonable to see this part of the defendant's argument is without merit.

① At the time of the instant case, E was merely 15 years of age due to the birth in 2001, and was in the same seat with E.

F was born in 200 and was over 16 years of age at the time of the instant case.

(2) The defendant confirmed his identification card of E.

However, E is consistent from the investigative agency to the original trial, and presents identification card to the defendant.