청소년보호법위반
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
1. According to the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor’s summary of the grounds of appeal, G had dolus negligence in selling liquor to juveniles, at least, since G was aware that at the time of the instant case employees G did not produce identification cards, and only conducted an identification examination of H’s identification card, and sold alcoholic beverages to E.
Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant not guilty of the facts charged of this case, which erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
2. The lower court found the Defendant not guilty on the ground that the evidence presented by the prosecutor alone was insufficient to recognize that the Defendant, the main shop of the instant case, was aware that E was a juvenile, and that there was no other evidence to acknowledge this.
In light of the records, the above measures of the court below are just and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, and according to the written indictment of this case, the defendant was indicted for selling alcoholic beverages directly to E, but even according to the prosecutor's grounds of appeal, G, an employee of the main office of this case at the time of this case, was not negligent in selling alcoholic beverages to E, and there is no assertion that the defendant sold alcoholic beverages directly to E while recognizing that E is a juvenile.
Therefore, the prosecutor's above assertion is without merit.
3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.