The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant, at the time of the instant case, misjudgmentation of facts, knew that F was a juvenile.

F had been mature, such as being able to hold cremation, and said that he was an adult at the time of the interview.

The defendant confirmed that F would bring his resident registration certificate to F, and the name of F was written as "M" and "93 years old" as "M" in his resident registration certificate.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unfair sentencing (two years of suspension of execution, probation, 40 hours of attendance order for sexual assault treatment lectures, and confiscation, which the lower court sentenced the Defendant on the grounds that the sentence of unfair sentencing is unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. (1) Considering the fact that the legislative purport of the Juvenile Protection Act is to protect juveniles from various harmful environments including harmful acts so that juveniles can grow into healthy character, the main business owner of a juvenile harmful business establishment is obligated to verify whether juveniles are juveniles by means of identification cards or other reliable methods when there are circumstances suspected of being juveniles by the appearance or screen of those who perform entertainment, etc. as the main business owner of a juvenile harmful business establishment. If the business owner fails to take any measures to confirm their age in violation of the duty to confirm age and fails to employ juveniles to take any measures to confirm age, barring any special circumstances, barring any special circumstance, it shall be deemed that the business owner is not guilty of violating the Juvenile Protection Act due to the employment of at least juveniles to harmful business establishments.

(2) On the basis of the above legal principle, the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, i.e., F’s photograph attached to the investigation record, it appears that there is sufficient room for doubt as a juvenile regardless of clothes, teas, or cremation which had been put in place at the time of the instant case, and F is the head of the Defendant, who is the head of the investigation agency or the court of original instance.