Although there was a fact that the Defendant sold anless alcoholic beer, the Defendant did not have sold alcoholic beverages such as beer containing alcohol, etc., but the lower court convicted the Defendant by misunderstanding the fact.

Judgment

In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, i.e., the police officer F sent to the singing practice room for the operation of the defendant after receiving 112 reports, and E, etc. requested appraisal to the National Institute of Scientific Investigation for Human Sciences by collecting the liquid in which E, etc. left for drinking, and it is revealed as a result of the appraisal that E is 4.4% alcoholic content, and E, the reporter, who is the 112 reporter, had a good appraisal about the defendant on the grounds that the defendant was aware of Dominium, but it is not enough to dismiss the defendant through active evidence manipulation, such as changing the intangible alcoholic beverage in the cup into the beer containing alcohol content. However, the defendant can be sufficiently recognized the fact that the defendant sold alcoholic beverages containing alcohol as the above appraisal.

In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act since it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.