The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is as follows: (a) the Defendant did not sell alcoholic beverages after the combination of youth E and F, and E and F did not drink the alcoholic beverages at the time; and (b) even if he sold alcoholic beverages after the combination of youth E and F, it did not sell alcoholic beverages to G, E and F, a juvenile, even though they were sold after the combination of youth E and F, the lower court convicted the Defendant of the facts charged in the instant case by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, and thereby, convicted the Defendant.

2. Determination

A. In order for a restaurant operator to constitute a "act of selling alcoholic beverages to juveniles" under Article 51 subparagraph 8 of the Juvenile Protection Act, the act of selling alcoholic beverages to many persons who entered the restaurant. Thus, the juvenile was included in the day and the restaurant operator should have been aware of the act of selling alcoholic beverages to juveniles at the time when the alcoholic beverages were delivered to the restaurant. Thus, in a case where a restaurant operator goes together with juveniles because only adults are present at the time of the issuance of alcoholic beverages and they go together with juveniles later, it cannot be said that the restaurant operator first was under the circumstance that it was predicted that the juvenile later would go together, or that the restaurant operator would have been aware of it later, and even if the juvenile dices remaining at the time of the delivery of alcoholic beverages, it cannot be said that the restaurant operator did the act of selling alcoholic beverages to the juvenile.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Do4069, Oct. 9, 2001). However, in a case where a juvenile’s act of selling alcohol constitutes an act of selling alcohol, an adult’s act of selling alcohol, ordered the alcohol or calculated the alcohol value.

(2) The same does not apply to

(See Supreme Court Decision 2004Do3999 Decided September 24, 2004). B.

In light of the above legal principles, according to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, E and F are juveniles.