The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendant received the alcohol value from adult G, but sold alcohol to juveniles by means of neglecting it in a state where the Defendant was aware that the Defendant would drink alcohol.

Nevertheless, the court below ruled the defendant not guilty of the facts charged in this case, and the court below erred by misunderstanding the facts and misunderstanding the legal principles.

2. Determination

A. In light of the difference between the first instance court and the appellate court’s method of evaluating credibility in accordance with the spirit of substantial direct deliberation adopted by the Korean Criminal Procedure Act as an element of the trial-oriented principle, the first instance court’s decision on the credibility of the statement made by the witness of the first instance court was clearly erroneous in light of the contents of the first instance judgment and the evidence duly examined in the first instance court’s first instance trial.

Unless there are extenuating circumstances to see the credibility of the statement made by a witness of the first instance trial and the result of further examination of evidence conducted by the court of first instance until the closing of pleadings, the appellate court should not reverse without permission the first instance judgment on the sole ground that the first instance judgment on the credibility of the statement made by the witness of the first instance is different from the appellate court’s judgment (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Do5313, Jun. 14, 2012). (b) In light of the aforementioned legal principles, comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted by the court below and the appellate court and the first instance court, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to acknowledge the fact that the defendant sold alcohol to juveniles F, E, etc., and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it otherwise.

1) At the time of the occurrence of the instant case, the Defendant prepared a letter (7 pages of evidence) that corresponds to the facts charged in the instant case, but thereafter, at the investigative agency.