The defendant shall be innocent.

1. No person who is the summary of the facts charged shall sell drugs harmful to juveniles to juveniles;

Nevertheless, around 00:50 on February 15, 2016, the Defendant sold 4 sick weeks, which are harmful drugs to juveniles, to G (V, age 18), etc. without confirming the age, at a general restaurant of “F” located in Gangdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government E, and without confirming the age.

2. In order for a person operating a judgment restaurant to constitute “an act of selling alcoholic beverages to juveniles” under Article 51 subparag. 8 of the Juvenile Protection Act, the act of selling alcoholic beverages, such as alcoholic beverages, to many persons who entered the restaurant constitutes “an act of selling alcoholic beverages to juveniles,” the person was included in the juvenile at the time when he gets into the restaurant, and the restaurant operator should have been aware of it. Thus, if he gets into the restaurant at the time when he gets into the restaurant and drinks with the juvenile later, he she would have been able to anticipate that the restaurant operator would go together with the juvenile later, or if he gets into the restaurant, he she would have received some alcoholic beverages remaining at the time when he gets into the restaurant, unless he gets into the restaurant and added alcoholic beverages with the juvenile joint, she would have received some alcoholic beverages remaining at the time she got into the restaurant.

Even if the restaurant operator did an act of selling alcoholic beverages to juveniles;

In light of the above legal principles, we cannot see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Do4069, Oct. 9, 2001; Supreme Court Decision 2008Do11282, Apr. 9, 2009). According to the evidence adopted and examined by this court, we did not confirm the identity card of G, which is a juvenile, in the above F restaurant at the time of the ruling of the defendant, and G did not confirm the identification card of G, which is a juvenile, in the above F restaurant at the time of the ruling of the defendant, and it is recognized that G had drinking in the above restaurant.

However, the following circumstances recognized by the evidence adopted and examined by this Court, that is, G, the defendant's first in this Court.