The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal was that the Defendant confirmed the identification card of E before the title of this case, and could sufficiently recognize that he was not the same person because his face and face are not similar to that of E, and at the time of this case, he did not examine the identification card of E, and thus, the Defendant was not aware of the fact that E is a juvenile.

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant not guilty of the facts charged of this case. The lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. The following circumstances, which are acknowledged by the records of the judgment, i.e., the witness in the court of the court below; i.e., the witness in the court of the court below; ii) visited the defendant on March 4, 2014, which was before the title of this case, and visited the defendant on March 4, 2014, which was the date of birth, and stated that he presented another person's identification card as 194; ii) although Eul stated that the photograph of the identification card presented by the defendant was not similar to the defendant, it cannot be readily concluded that the defendant could not be sufficiently aware of whether he was the same person; and there was no other circumstance to suspect that E presented another person's identification card; iii) the defendant did not confirm his identification card before the title of this case, which was known that he was not the juvenile; and E also stated that the defendant was memory on the day of this case, and there was no error in the misapprehension of facts in the judgment of the court below on the ground of its reasoning.