A. The Defendant alleged misunderstanding of the facts or misapprehension of the legal principles as to the identification cards presented by E prior to the instant case, and the Defendant sold tobacco to E with the knowledge that E is an adult, so there was no intention to sell tobacco to juveniles.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s wrongful assertion of sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. (1) The lower court’s judgment on the assertion of misunderstanding of the facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine (1) was intentional to sell tobacco to the Defendant, with dolusent negligence, by taking account of the following legal principles and the circumstances revealed in the records and arguments.

The decision was determined.

In light of the legislative purpose of the Juvenile Protection Act, since a business owner, such as convenience stores that sell harmful drugs to juveniles, is responsible for not selling harmful drugs to juveniles. Thus, if a business owner, such as convenience stores, sells harmful drugs to juveniles, he/she shall verify the age of the juvenile on the basis of his/her resident registration certificate or evidence with public probative value of age to the degree similar to that of his/her resident registration certificate, and if there is doubt that the photographs and real objects on his/her resident registration certificate presented by the person concerned are different, the case of purchasing alcoholic beverages, tobacco, etc. using another person's resident registration certificate to conceal his/her identity and age has a duty to take additional measures to confirm age, such as making juveniles use his/her resident registration certificate detailed comparison of photographs and objects on his/her resident registration certificate, or displaying his/her address or resident registration number on his/her resident registration certificate, etc.

In other words, (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Do8385, Sept. 27, 2013). The Defendant had received one student card from E before the instant case.