The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant misunderstanding of facts on June 2015, 2015.

The E and F demanded the resident registration certificate to be sought from E and F, and E presented the resident registration certificate and the F returned to her match because they did not have any resident registration number, but they did not have any customer. On June 27, 2015, if the above juveniles were found to be a defendant's store again, they confirmed that they were adults through their resident registration certificates, and thus, they did not have intention to violate the law.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In the court below's determination of fact, E only stated the name of processing who is requested to present a resident registration certificate from the defendant and the resident number, and F also stated that the defendant does not have any record of presenting the resident registration certificate.

One Part F presents a false resident registration certificate at the request of the defendant, but the defendant did not see the person on the resident registration certificate and himself.

was stated.

B. Ab. A. E was abandoned after presenting an identification card to the defendant on June 27, 2015 at an investigative agency.

In addition, the court below presented the identification card according to the direction of the news report worker who arranged himself/herself to the defendant, as well as the failure to find the resident registration certificate even after searching the control site at the time of the statement.

In light of the fact that the statement, E and F submitted a written statement to reverse the legal statement of the court below, but it is difficult to believe that the facts charged are guilty in light of the purpose of the preparation, etc., it can be sufficiently recognized that the facts charged are guilty.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of factual mistake is rejected.

B. The criminal defendant has no record of being punished for the same crime, and only has the record of being punished once as a fine.

However, it is not good that the defendant employed juveniles who are 15 years of age and 16 years of age at the time as entertainment-based entertainment service loans, and it is not good to commit the crime.

The age, age, and age of the defendant.