Since all of the above juveniles were shipped out of others' identification cards, the defendant was bound to believe that the above juveniles were adults.

The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in the instant case.

2. According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, the following facts or circumstances are acknowledged.

In other words, around 03:00 on January 28, 2013, juveniles E and F were provided with the main points operated by the Defendant, along with H and I.

② E/F consistently stated from the first police investigation on the date of control to the comparison of E, F, and H, that “the Defendant did not inspect the identification card at the time of the instant case”.

③ In a general survey with Hdo E and F, the Defendant stated that “The Defendant did not verify the identification card until he/she takes the main place of the drinking and ordered the drinking.”

On the other hand, H appeared as a witness in the court of the first instance, and stated that “Defendant verified the identification card of E and F.”.

However, H’s testimony was stated as follows: (a) the time and circumstances during which the testimony was made; (b) when H was investigated by the police along with E and F, and repeatedly more than three times; and (c) the Defendant did not inspect the identification card; and (d) the Defendant was able to take a job thereafter; and (c) in light of the content of the statement made by E and F in each police investigation, it cannot be trusted as it is.

E also appeared as a witness in the court of the first instance, and stated that “Defendant confirmed the identification card of E and F.”

However, as seen earlier, E is consistent from the police investigation on the date of crackdown to the general investigation, “Defendant did not verify the identification card of E and F.”