Based on the evidence presented, the court below acknowledged the facts such as the defendant's 6th century and 6th century and 4th century and the above fact-finding, etc. on October 27, 2002, on the ground that the defendant did not take measures such as questioning his age or identification card to the juvenile sexual abortion (17 years old, 18 years old, 19 years old) and the juvenile sexual intercourse (17 years old, 18 years old) accompanied with him at a general restaurant operated by himself as a customer at that general restaurant around 21:30 on October 27, 2002. The court below held that the defendant violated the rules of evidence or the records of the Juvenile Protection Act, since he did not know that he was a juvenile with the same drinking together, and sold his alcoholic beverages to him, and that he violated the rules of evidence or the records of the Juvenile Protection Act, and there was no violation of the rules of evidence or the judgment of the court below as to the facts-finding under Article 58 (1) 1 and 2 of the Juvenile Protection Act.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Justices Byun Jae-chul (Presiding Justice)