The defendant shall be innocent.

1. The defendant in the facts charged is a person who operates the D points located in Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and no person shall sell drugs and articles harmful to juveniles to juveniles.

Nevertheless, around 04:00 on August 19, 2012, the Defendant, within the above main point, sold to E (n, 16 years of age), and F (n, 17 years of age) the 6-walk-walk-walk-walk, which is a drug harmful to juveniles, at the price of 67,50 won.

2. The defendant and his defense counsel asserted that G, who is an employee of the defendant and his defense counsel, had sold alcoholic beverages with the knowledge that he was not a juvenile, by verifying that G, who is an employee of the defendant and his defense counsel, entered his name and date of birth with his identification card received from E

3. In light of the following circumstances revealed by the records, namely, that the evidence submitted by the investigation agency and the prosecutor's office, including each of the statements in the investigation agency and in this court, G, an employee of the defendant, who received the identification card of 89 years and 93 years old and confirmed by the records of judgment, is deemed to be reliable in light of the fact that each of the statements in the investigation agency and in this court, which are employees of the defendant, is specifically clarified the names and dates of birth of the holders of the above identification card, and that each of the statements in the E and F is under punishment for unlawful uttering of official document, it is difficult to view that credibility exists solely on the ground that the statement is consistent, and that E and F stated that H, an employee of the E and F, stating that he had inspected the identification card of E and F (the investigation record No. 58 pages), it is difficult to conclude that the defendant sold alcoholic beverages even with the knowledge that E and F was a juvenile, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it otherwise.

4. In conclusion, the facts charged in this case constitute a case where there is no proof of crime, and thus, a judgment of innocence is rendered under the latter part of Article 325