The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. According to the summary of the grounds for appeal E, F’s investigation agency, and the court below’s statement, the court below acquitted the defendant, although the defendant did not confirm his age by examining identification cards of E and F, which are juveniles on the day of the case, and it could sufficiently recognize the fact that he sold beer and beer, which are drugs harmful to juveniles, but the court below erred by misapprehending the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. From the investigative agency to the trial of the party, the Defendant had thoroughly conducted an identification card inspection on his/her ordinary restaurant customers, and even E/F, who had been a son, was already aware of the fact that he/she was not a juvenile, and thus, the Defendant did not recognize that he/she was a juvenile on the day of the instant case, and consistently denied the intent of the seller of drugs harmful to juveniles.

The court below found the defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case on the ground that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to recognize the defendant's criminal intent, and that there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. The court below found the defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case on the following grounds: the defendant demanded to present his identification card to him when E, F, etc. was found in the restaurant operated first by the witness E, F, and G's testimony; E, etc. had presented his identification card to the defendant several times; the defendant confirmed his identification card to F on several occasions, and the defendant knew that he had sold alcohol to E, etc. at the time as stated in the facts charged because the previous identification card to E, F, etc. was mistaken as an adult as stated in the changed facts.

A thorough examination of records by comparison with the various evidences adopted by the court below through legitimate evidence examination, the judgment of the court below is justified, and there is an error of misconception of facts.