청소년보호법위반
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
1. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence presented by the prosecutor, the court below found the defendant not guilty of the facts charged in this case, although the defendant acknowledged that E and F as the head of D business, while recognizing that he and F are juveniles, could be sufficiently recognized that he were involved in providing a lawsuit to them, or an implied fact. Thus, the court below erred in the misapprehension of facts.
2. Determination
A. The summary of the facts charged of the instant case is prohibited from selling or distributing to juveniles harmful drugs, etc., or providing them free of charge.
On July 3, 2016, at around 06:30 on July 3, 2016, the Defendant sold to juvenile E (V, 17 years of age), F (n, 16 years of age), a juvenile-related juvenile-related juvenile-related juvenile-related juvenile-related juvenile-related juvenile-related juvenile-related juvenile-related juvenile-related juvenile-related juvenile-related juvenile-related juvenile-related juvenile-related alcoholic beverages.
B. In light of the following circumstances, the lower court found the Defendant not guilty of the instant facts charged on the ground that the evidence presented by the Prosecutor alone was insufficient to recognize that the Defendant, while recognizing that the Defendant was a juvenile, provided the said juvenile, or impliedly offered the said juvenile to the said juvenile, and that there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.
1. That E/F did not undergo an identification card inspection upon receipt of a tenant from D in the police investigation.
The testimony was made in the court below, and F testified as the same content in the court below.
On the other hand, upon the first examination date of the first examination of the first examination of the court below, E was in possession of “at the time other employees than the defendant have inspected the identification card, and F was in possession.
Don's identification card was presented, it was called "the identification card was lost as a relative," and it was provided by the employee as a tenant.
In police investigations, the police did not examine identification cards to prevent F from being punished.
Although false statements have been made, they are for themselves.