A. The misunderstanding of facts has been mature, and the defendant did not bring alcohol, but the juveniles have drank in the cooling house.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which convicted the defendant is erroneous in misconception of facts or misapprehension of legal principles.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the grounds of unreasonable sentencing (700,000 won of a fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) According to the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court of the court below, the defendant brought about the basic algorithn which the juvenile entered, and recognized the fact that the defendant was paid the algorithn and the sales proceeds from the juvenile. Even if the juvenile was paid out in a cooling house, according to the above facts of recognition, the defendant should be deemed to have sold alcohol. 2) In light of the legislative purport of the Juvenile Protection Act, unless it is objectively deemed that the employer and the employee of a business establishment prohibited from allowing access to juveniles objectively, unless there are circumstances that make it difficult to doubt the person as the juvenile, the age of the juvenile should be confirmed based on the resident registration certificate or evidence with public probative value of age equivalent thereto (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Do2425, Jun. 28, 2002; 2002Do324, Feb. 28, 2002).