The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor of the gist of the grounds for appeal, since the defendant received the identification card from the I when examining G's identification card, and returned it to the I, it could be sufficiently recognized that the above identification card is not G, and H did not confirm the life of the student card, it is not possible to acknowledge dolusent intent in violation of the Juvenile Protection Act.

The judgment of the court below which acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged of this case is erroneous by misapprehending the legal principles.

2. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, the following facts are acknowledged.

① The Defendant stated from the investigative agency to the court of the trial at the court of the trial that “the South and North have inspected the identification card against four women after the toilet. One person shows two other identification cards,” and that “a photograph and face was confirmed, and the date of birth of identification card was 91 years in full.” The Defendant stated that “The photograph and appearance of his/her identification card are similar to that of his/her address and resident number.”

② The following pages are confirmed from CCTV images installed in the instant restaurant:

- At around 10:44 on April 15, 2013, 10: G, H, I, and one male and female, respectively, enter “F” and one male and female, and the other male and female, having a toilet and four male and female, were seated on the table of the adjoining wife.

At around 10:46, the employees J and the Defendant moved to the above table in sequence, and the Defendant divided four women who are seated in the table from 10:47:04 to 10:47:33, and she considered some of them to return.

③ At the investigative agency, G stated that “the Defendant was the first day of the instant case, only the Defendant’s identification card was confirmed, G, H, and I’s identification card was not confirmed.” At the lower court’s court, “The Defendant did not verify the G’s identification card, and only one name was confirmed during the first day.”