The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. According to the first written statement prepared by F in the police, the summary of the grounds for appeal states that “other than the description “I” includes “I, E, I, I, and H’s respective statements,” and that E, I, and M first drink in the Defendant restaurant, and the F was combined, and finally H did not use the F’s resident registration certificate for the 93-year student who was in F was in possession, and the contents of the above written statement are not reliable. Since F thereafter stated that “I, E, I, and H did not consistently inspect identification cards, and the Defendant did not appear in the court of the lower judgment and did not know that the Defendant was not guilty of the facts charged, in light of the fact that the Defendant did not clearly state his identity cards prior to the instant facts charged, the lower court determined that the Defendant did not use the first written statement to the effect that the Defendant did not know the credibility of the Defendant’s identification cards.” In so doing, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the fact that the Defendant did not use the same identification cards as the Defendant stated in the judgment.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is a person who operates a general restaurant in the name of D cafeteria at the window C of Changwon-si.

The defendant around 23:00 on October 2, 2013 is a juvenile E (ma, 17 years of age) at the above restaurant.