The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant shall be innocent.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (fact-finding) was a fact that the Defendant sold alcoholic beverages to F and H at the main points of his/her operation, but first, the Defendant presented an adult identification card, i, G, and J, both of which were located in the above main points, and thereafter verified F and H’s identification card, and also presented an adult identification card. As such, the Defendant did not know of the fact that F and H were juveniles.

Therefore, the defendant did not have any intention to commit the crime of this case.

2. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case shall not sell, lend, or distribute to juveniles drugs harmful to juveniles.

Nevertheless, at around 01:30 on February 15, 2012, the Defendant sold 1 disease, etc. from “Eju” operated by the Defendant in Seo-gu Incheon, Seo-gu, Incheon, to two juveniles including “F(17 years of age).

3. Determination

A. The facts constituting an offense prosecuted in a criminal trial must be proven by the prosecutor, and the judge should be found guilty with evidence having probative value, which leads to the conviction that the facts charged are true beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, if there is no such evidence, even if there is a suspicion of guilt against the defendant, it is inevitable to determine it with the benefit of the defendant.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2002Do5662 delivered on December 24, 2002, etc.). B.

The main evidence supporting the instant facts charged lies in the statements at the investigative agencies and courts of I, G, F, J, and H. However, both I, G, and J stated in the investigative agencies that “the Defendant did not inspect his identification card at the time of the instant case.” The court of the original instance reversed the previous statement that “the Defendant inspected his identification card at the time of the instant case.” The court of the lower court reversed the previous statement that “I, G, and H did not believe that the said statement is inconsistent, and ② at the time of the instant case, the Defendant demanded the Defendant to compensate for the water divers.”