Nevertheless, the court below erred by misunderstanding the facts of this case as guilty.

2. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court, the lower court may recognize the fact that the Defendant sold alcoholic beverages to E, etc. without verifying the identification card of juvenile E, etc.

1)A written statement made on July 20, 2014, as follows: “E does not verify the identification card during the last time; “E does not verify the identification card”; “A does not verify the identification card during the last time”; “A does not confirm the identification card during the last time”; “H did not verify the identification card;” “I does not confirm the identification card;” “I does not confirm the identification card from the written statement.”

(Evidence Nos. 11 through 15 of the Evidence Records). (2) On July 29, 2014, when making a telephone conversation with the police, E stated, “D does not have to inspect a resident registration certificate at ordinary times because it did not inspect a resident registration certificate at least 3,4 times,” and G stated, “D was first taken around July 20, 2014, and no resident registration certificate inspection was conducted at that time.”

(No. 35). (3) On August 4, 2014, when making a telephone conversation with the police on August 4, 2014, F stated that “D was first going to the second place on July 20, 2014, and it was not required to inspect the identification card even if it was first going to the first place, and I stated that “D was entered in D No. 2 and 3, and D does not conduct an identification card inspection.”

(4) The Defendant accused E, etc. as a crime of uttering of forged official document, but the prosecutor took a disposition that E, etc. was suspected on October 28, 2014.