The sentence of sentence against the defendant shall be suspended.

A. misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles 1) The Defendant only sold alcoholic beverages to a single-competing guest who is an adult, and the juvenile G is breathing or breathing in the last place after being present with him. 2) If the penal provision of this case purports to punish a juvenile by deeming that the instant penal provision was sold alcoholic beverages to a juvenile even “where a juvenile sells alcoholic beverages to a gender but is divided into them and breathing,” it goes against the principle of clarity beyond the predictability of the criminal.

In addition, adults who divided the alcoholic beverages to juveniles shall be punished without punishing only sellers, and they shall be treated equally as employers who operate entertainment bars with the purpose of purchasing and taking alcoholic beverages, and general restaurants with the purpose of drinking by customers, and impose an obligation to monitor to prevent juveniles from drinking alcoholic beverages on adults. This is against the Constitution that excessively limits the freedom of occupation or violates the principle of equality.

B. The lower court’s sentencing (fine 500,000 won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination on the grounds for appeal

A. 1) According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court and the lower court (in particular, G party’s statement), the Defendant could sufficiently recognize the fact that the Defendant sold beer and 2,00c and 2 soldiers, which are drugs harmful to juveniles, to juvenile G around March 15, 2014. (2) The phrase “sale of drugs harmful to juveniles, etc. harmful to juveniles” under Articles 59 subparag. 6 and 28(1) of the Juvenile Protection Act, which are the penal provisions of this case, can be sufficiently embodied through a reasonable interpretation of law, and the objective application of arbitrary laws is excluded.