Around March 29, 2013, no one had sold drugs harmful to juveniles, etc. to juveniles, but the Defendant sold two soldiers, such as E (the age of 17) who are juveniles, to two persons, including juveniles, from D around March 19, 2013.

2. The judgment of the court below and the defendant denied the charges of this case by asserting that they confirmed E’s identification card stated in “194 (194)” at the time of this case in this court. Therefore, as to whether the defendant was aware of the fact that E, etc. was a juvenile at the time of this case, the health care unit, the police interrogation protocol of the defendant submitted by the prosecutor as to whether the defendant was a juvenile at the time of this case and the record of the defendant’s preparation, all of which are denied in this court, and it is difficult to view that the facts charged of this case, which the defendant sold the defendant as a juvenile, even though the defendant knew that E, etc. was a juvenile, are not admissible, and it is difficult to view that the facts charged of this case were proven beyond reasonable doubt. Rather, according to the first-aid services which were bound in the public trial record, the name in the patient identification column was “E” from “F” to “18 years old,” and the front resident registration number was modified from “G” to “H” to “H”,” and the defendant’s identification card of this case cannot be excluded even if it.

3. According to the conclusion, the above facts charged constitute a case where there is no proof of crime, and thus, a judgment of innocence is rendered under the latter part of Article 32