If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 50,000 won.

The defendant is a person who operates the business of mutual title D in Bupyeong-gu Incheon Metropolitan City.

No one shall sell, lend, or distribute drugs harmful to juveniles, etc. to juveniles.

Nevertheless, the Defendant:

1. From around 00:20 on November 1, 2012, around 00:0 to juvenile E (15 years of age, leisure) and F (15 years of age, leisure) sold 2 bottles, which are drugs harmful to juveniles, without verifying their age; and

2. On April 21, 2012, around 21:00, the age of juvenile G (18 years of age, south) and H (18 years of age, leisure) within the above D head office was not verified, and sales of the total amount of KRW 18,500, such as 2 disease, beer and beer, 500ck, and one beer and beer, which are drugs harmful to juveniles.

Summary of Evidence

1. Legal statement of witness F;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes in which respective statements of witnesses E, G and H are written in the second trial records;

1. Article 51 subparagraph 8 of the Juvenile Protection Act and Article 26 (1) of the same Act and the selection of fines for offenses;

1. Of concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act;

1. Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. Determination on the assertion by the Defendant and the defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the provisional payment order

1. As to the crime No. 1 of the ruling on the content of the assertion, the Defendant confirmed whether E and F were a juvenile, and confirmed and presented a forged resident registration certificate, and the above two juveniles provided only to the spherfy and call to the joint seat.

In addition, G argues that with regard to the crime of No. 2 in its ruling, it has great physical strengths and faces, and G's resident registration certificate presented by G is 190s and it did not raise any doubt, and H thought that it was the same age.

2. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by this Court, the Defendant, a juvenile, sold alcoholic beverages without thoroughly examining his/her age identification card to E, F, G, and H, in addition to asking his/her age, and E, F, and G were forged.