No one shall sell drugs harmful to juveniles, etc. to juveniles.

Nevertheless, at around 20:30 on March 28, 2015, the Defendant sold to E (the 18-year-old) a juvenile, a juvenile, at the foregoing alcohol house, 7,00 c. 77,00.

2. In the event that only adults are seated and drinked only on the job at the time when a judgment was granted, and later they come to joint with juveniles, there was a circumstance for the operator to anticipate that the juvenile later fell into joint with them, or that the juvenile later fell into joint with them, or that the juvenile later provided additional alcohol while recognizing it after the juvenile’s joint appearance, the operator cannot be deemed to have conducted an act of selling the remaining small liquor to the juvenile, even if the juvenile actually breaths a part of the remaining liquor.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2008Do11282 Decided April 9, 2009). First, the police interrogation protocol against the defendant is inadmissible as long as the defendant denies the contents of the protocol.

Next, there is evidence that seems to be somewhat consistent with the facts charged in the instant case, but the content of the written statement is merely that E dices and drinks are dices of the same kind at around 20:30 on March 28, 2015, and there is no content as to whether the Defendant sold alcohol to E.

The remaining evidence submitted by the prosecutor is also a presentation of opinion about the result of regulation by the investigative agency.

Rather, according to each evidence duly adopted and investigated by this court, the Defendant: (a) inspected the identification card on March 28, 2015, immediately after four witnesses enter the “D” house; (b) on March 28, 2015, at around 19:47:20; (c) 20:28:38 of the same day, E was in line with E’s daily activities; (d) however, the Defendant’s act, such as F and E, constitutes a juvenile.