A. In fact, the Defendant had confirmed the identification card presented by E around June 2017. However, the identification card was written by E as an adult, and thus, at the time of the instant case, sold tobacco without confirming the identification card as an adult. Accordingly, the Defendant did not have any intention to violate the Juvenile Protection Act.

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

2. The lower court’s determination as to the assertion of factual misunderstanding is based on the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court, i.e., ① in the past Smarket operated by the Defendant (hereinafter “Smarket”), several times in the investigative agency and the lower court made a different statement from each other about the number of times the Defendant left the Smarket. However, although the overall purport of this case’s tobacco was purchased several times in the Smarket, the Defendant did not demand the presentation of identification card, it does not seem to lack credibility in the entire statement of E solely on the above circumstances.

Although having purchased tobacco, the Defendant did not present his identification card, and stated that he did not have presented his identification card (Evidence No. 24, 26 pages, trial records No. 60,61 page). The Schlage also put his tobacco into the Schlage for the purpose of the fraud of tobacco without confirming his identification card.

(2) The first issuance of the resident registration certificate on August 8, 2017, which was made by the statement (Evidence No. 27 pages), ② E was issued on August 8, 2017, and there is no possibility that E had engaged in any act, such as forging the date of birth on his/her resident registration certificate (Evidence No. 41, 42 pages), ③ E is a maternal son and sibling, and there is no possibility that he/she was used on behalf of another person whose life is similar.