The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant, by inspecting the resident registration certificate of E, G, and I, was aware that he was an adult and sold alcohol, but the lower court convicted the Defendant of the facts charged in this case by misunderstanding the fact.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (an amount of KRW 500,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

A. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is a person who operates a general restaurant with the trade name “D” in Yongsan-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government.

At around 02:00 on November 6, 2016, the Defendant sold to juveniles E (FF, 16 years of age), G (H, 15 years of age), I (J students, 15 years of age), and I (J students, and 15 years of age) drugs harmful to juveniles at KRW 86,00,00.

B. We examine the judgment of the court below, and in light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court of the court below, the facts charged of this case is found guilty.

1. That E, I, and G did not examine the identification card by the defendant in the original court.

was stated.

② At the third public trial of the lower court, the Defendant inspected the identification card on the day of the instant case, and two of E I and G presented the real resident registration certificate, and one of them stated that he/she is memoryed as presenting the resident registration certificate taken by Handphones, even though it is not certain.

However, at the time of the instant case, E was 16 years of age, and I and G were 15 years of age when they cannot obtain a resident registration certificate (the resident registration certificate is issued to a person aged 17 years of age or older according to Article 24(1) of the Resident Registration Act), and if they presented a resident registration certificate as alleged by the Defendant, they were either a third party’s resident registration certificate or a forged resident registration certificate.

However, E, I, and G were searched from police officers on the day of this case in this court, and there was no forged identification card.

was stated.

③ On the day of the instant case, E is a motor device driver’s license.