Therefore, the judgment of the court below convicting this part of the facts charged is erroneous by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. In light of the purport, content, etc. of the Juvenile Protection Act, as seen in the instant case, a business owner, such as the main shop, who sells alcoholic beverages harmful to juveniles, is responsible for not selling alcoholic beverages to juveniles for the protection of juveniles. As such, in the event that alcoholic beverages are sold at the main shop, etc., the subject’s age should be verified based on the resident registration certificate or other evidence of public probative value equivalent thereto, and if there is doubt that the photographs and real objects on the resident registration certificate presented by the subject are different from those on the resident registration certificate, etc., the case of purchasing alcoholic beverages using other person’s resident registration certificate is over duty to take additional measures to identify the age of juveniles, such as making them in detail comparison with those on other person’s resident registration certificate or displaying their addresses or resident registration numbers on the resident registration certificate (see Supreme Court Decision 2014Do5173, Jul. 10, 2014). The lower court’s judgment and the evidence duly admitted and duly admitted by the first instance court, the following facts charged can be sufficiently acknowledged as follows.

E In an investigative agency, “The Defendant did not require the Defendant to present four personal identification cards, including the lower court.”

The defendant did not demand identification card even in ordinary times, and the amount of time is 2-3 times.