1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. From June 12, 2015, the Plaintiff is operating a general restaurant in the name of “C points” in Daegu Jung-gu (hereinafter “instant business establishment”).

B. On August 27, 2018, the Plaintiff was subject to a disposition of suspending prosecution on the violation of the Juvenile Protection Act, which stated that “ around July 21, 2017, at the Daegu District Prosecutors’ Office, the Plaintiff provided alcoholic beverages to juveniles D (E) and three other persons without verifying identification cards.”

C. On September 5, 2018, the Defendant: (a) applied Articles 44(2) and 75 of the Food Sanitation Act and Article 89 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act on the ground of the provision of juvenile alcoholic beverages to the Plaintiff; (b) issued a disposition of business suspension for one month (hereinafter “the first disposition”).

The plaintiff filed an administrative appeal against the original disposition, and on October 29, 2018, the Daegu Metropolitan City Administrative Appeals Commission made an adjudication that changed the original disposition to the 20-day disposition of business suspension.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”), which was reduced on September 5, 2018 by the said administrative appeal ruling, as the business suspension period of 20 days, (hereinafter “instant disposition”). 【No dispute exists, the entries in Gap’s 1, 2, 4, Eul’s 1 through 4, and 8, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff alleged that the plaintiff operated the business of this case in Pyeongtaek-si exemplaryly, there is no record of administrative disposition, access to the business of this case by using a forged identification card by two juveniles on the day of the case, and thereafter, two juveniles in the future joined the business of this case, but only provided alcoholic beverages to adults, and in the process, they did not intentionally violate relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, but intentionally reported to the police for the purpose of the impreging, even though it is difficult for the plaintiff to make it difficult for him to do so, the suspension of indictment is imposed on the grounds that the plaintiff constantly contributed to F, and that the case concerning the violation of the Juvenile Protection Act is minor.