The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The decision of the court below on the gist of the grounds for appeal (one million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). The Defendant, while operating a restaurant, sells alcoholic beverages without verifying the age of juveniles and is not good to commit such crime.

There are two times of fines due to the violation of the Juvenile Protection Act in the past.

In addition, even if the materials submitted in the trial court are considered, there is no meaningful change in the sentencing conditions compared with the court below.

In addition, considering the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, intelligence and environment, health and property status, family relationship and social ties, relationship with the victim, motive, means and consequence of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, etc., the sentencing of the lower court does not seem to be unreasonable because it excessively goes beyond the reasonable scope of discretion, even if it is considered that the cafeteria, the sole means of living, as alleged by the Defendant, was subject to the disposition of business suspension for two months as to the restaurant, which is the only means of living, as the instant punishment.

Therefore, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.