The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 700,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. In full view of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, such as F’s statement in the court below that is contrary to F’s summary of the grounds for appeal, it is acknowledged that the Defendant sold alcoholic beverages without an identification card to F, who is a juvenile, based on the evidence submitted by F such as the above witness and F’s statement in the police.

However, the court below acquitted the charged facts of this case on the ground that there is no proof of crime.

Therefore, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is as follows: (a) the Defendant was at the main point of “E” in Mayang-gu, Mayang-gu and Ma on the ground level; and (b) no one may sell drugs harmful to juveniles to juveniles.

At around 01:30 on September 6, 2013, the Defendant sold to F (the age of 17) the two small-sized drugs, which are drugs harmful to juveniles, to 22,000 won without verifying the age of the juvenile F (the age of 17).

3. Determination

A. The lower court determined that the Defendant was not a juvenile upon presenting the F identification card from the police to the court of the lower court. At the time, the Defendant asserted that F was a juvenile by gathering the fact that F was a juvenile from G (H), while F, a police officer, stated that F did not conduct an identification card inspection when the Defendant, who was the business owner of “E,” was the employer of “E”, or the Defendant, who was an employee, at the police station, told F that I would like to say that I would have conducted an identification card inspection after he was exposed to the police. However, the lower court appeared as a witness at the court of the lower court and stated that “the Defendant was punished for using another person’s identification card at the time of the police investigation.” The lower court reversed the above statement at the police station to the effect that “F made a false statement that F was not subject to an identification card inspection.”