The defendant shall be innocent.

1. The Defendant: (a) was the main point of “E” at Anyang-gu Manan-gu, Mayang-gu, and the first floor above ground; (b) around 01:30 on September 6, 2013, at the above main point, sold to F (17 years of age) a juvenile harmful drug in KRW 22,00,00.

2. Determination

A. The Defendant confirmed that he was not a juvenile upon the F’s identification card from the police to the instant court. At the time, the Defendant asserted that F was selling a novel, etc. without gathering the fact that F was a juvenile, on the wind that presented G(H)’s identification card.

B. Comprehensively taking into account the statement of F in the police interrogation protocol of the police suspect, each fact inquiry statement, internal investigation report (a confirmation as to whether the juvenile F has presented another person's resident registration certificate to the suspect), and investigation report (Juvenile F telephone conversations), the F stated to the effect that: (a) at the time of undergoing investigation by the police, the employer of "EM store" or the defendant, who is an employee, did not conduct an identification examination when he sells a suit to F; (b) after the police was exposed to the police, he stated to the effect that he would be said to have conducted an identification examination by I, etc.; and (c) the fact that I and F currency was made immediately after the occurrence of the instant case.

C. However, in light of the following circumstances, the witness F, J and K's respective legal statements, reports on detection of suspects in violation of the Juvenile Protection Act, and the investigation reports (in the face of 15 pages of investigation records), as a whole, are recognized:

In full view of the circumstances as described in paragraph (1) and other evidence submitted by the prosecutor, such as copies of the resident registration certificate of G, the Defendant did not examine F the identification card.

In addition, it is difficult to view that the facts charged in this case, which is premised on the fact that there are special circumstances to have sufficient doubts about the identity of the F, such as that the photograph on the identification card presented by the Defendant differs from the F’s appearance observed with the face, is proven to the extent that a reasonable doubt is excluded.

(1) F is in this Court.