The Defendant is a person who operates a liquor house A on the first floor of Ulsan-gun, Ulsan-gun, ○○○○○○○. No one is allowed to sell drugs harmful to juveniles to juveniles of his/her own. Nevertheless, around 20:30 on March 28, 2015, the Defendant sold the drugs harmful to juveniles of his/her own to ○○○ (the age of 18) who is a juvenile at the foregoing alcohol house in the amount of 7,00 c, etc. of 8 weeks and 700 c, which are drugs harmful to juveniles.

2. Determination.

In the event that only adults sit in the place at the time of the drinking and they drink and go together with juveniles while drinking alcoholic beverages, there was a circumstance for the first operator to anticipate that the last year of cleaning was the combined alcoholic beverages, or there was an additional drinking while the young was aware of it after the juvenile's joint attendance, and even if the remaining son of the remaining son, even if she partly dices the alcoholic beverages, the operator cannot be deemed to have performed an act of selling the alcoholic beverages to juveniles (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Do11282, Apr. 9, 209).

First of all, the protocol of interrogation of the defendant against the police does not have the ability to prove so long as the defendant denies the contents of the protocol. Next, although there are evidences that seem to be somewhat consistent with the facts charged in the instant case, the content of the protocol is about ○○○○ on March 28, 2015, the content of the protocol is about 4 residuess and alcohols in the same speech house at around 30:0 on March 28, 2015, and there is no content about whether the defendant sold alcohol to ○○○. The remainder of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor is merely a presentation of opinion about the crackdown by the investigative agency.

Rather, according to each evidence duly adopted and investigated by this Court, the defendant's difference in witness.

○ On March 28, 2015, immediately after four persons enter a drinking house "A": around 20: 47: Around the same day, 20: At around 20, 400: 20, 40: 38, 38, 00, 00 per day, ○○○ and ○○.

In fact, ○○○ and ○○○ et al., from the point of view of the fact, the following facts can only be found in the record that ○○ and ○○ et al. made a mistake in the drinking house for the purpose of drinking alcohol at the drinking house without referring that ○ is a juvenile, and ○○ and ○○ et al., made a mistake in the drinking house for the purpose of drinking alcohol at the drinking house. Accordingly, it can only be recognized that ○○ was later mentioned in the drinking house, and further, it cannot be found in the record that ○ was predicted that ○ and ○, a juvenile, was combined with ○○ et al., or that ○ and the Defendant provided an additional alcoholic beverage while drinking it.

Comprehensively taking account of the aforementioned legal principles and the facts acknowledged as above, the Defendant could not be deemed to have sold alcoholic beverages to ○○○, and there is no other evidence to prove the facts charged in the instant case. Therefore, the Defendant cannot be deemed to have sold alcoholic beverages to ○○, a juvenile.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the facts charged in this case constitute a case where there is no proof of crime, and thus, the defendant shall be acquitted pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the summary of the judgment shall not be publicly announced pursuant to the proviso of Article 58(2) of the Criminal Act. It is so decided as