The defendant shall be innocent.

1. The summary of the facts charged is that the accused operates general restaurants, and no person shall sell alcoholic beverages which are harmful to juveniles to juveniles under the age of 19;

Nevertheless, at around 02:30 on August 13, 2013, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against “D” restaurant operated by the Defendant of Mapo-gu Seoul at “D” restaurant operated by the Defendant of Mapo-gu Seoul, and against juvenile E (16 years of age), the Defendant was five illness, beer, and beer.

( Call) sold alcoholic beverages to juveniles by selling alcoholic beverages equivalent to a total of 52,000 won, such as 4 illness, 1 chickens, and 1 scopher’s bones, etc.

2. The defendant and his defense counsel asserted that there was no intention of violating the Juvenile Protection Act since the defendant requested E to present identification cards prior to the instant case, and the defendant presented identification cards to others who are adults, and at the time, E was aware that it was not a juvenile.

At each time, E stated that the police has entered the instant restaurant 3 and 4 times, and that the Defendant did not inspect the identification card at each time. The same content was also stated in this court, and the Defendant was aware from the Defendant when being examined at the police box as the instant case, that “I had been aware of the records that he had presented the identification card before and became an adult on the identification card until that time. I have shown to B that “I have shown the identification card that he had presented it to be an adult.”

In fact, the previous statement was partially reversed that the day before the enforcement of the instant case was not well memory, and in fact, the indictment was suspended on the grounds that E acquired and embezzled the resident registration certificate lost by another person. In light of the fact that if the Defendant did not pursue E at the police station, it would have been difficult to reveal the above fact, the statement at E’s investigative agency and this court is difficult to believe that the Defendant did not have any means to confirm the identity card of E.

In addition, the witness F shall be the witness F from this Court to January 2013.