The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, when D et al. visited a restaurant before, the Defendant did not confirm the identification card on the date of the occurrence of the instant case and did not intend to sell alcohol to juveniles.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (one million won in penalty) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The Juvenile Protection Act provides that “No person shall sell, lend, distribute, or provide free of charge drugs, etc. harmful to juveniles against a juvenile” (Article 28(1) main text); and “a person who intends to sell, lend, or distribute drugs, etc. harmful to juveniles shall verify the age of the other party” (Article 28(3)).

A person who sells alcoholic beverages, etc. is obvious that the other party is an adult in the external dog.

As long as it appears, the other party has a duty of care to request the other party to present resident registration certificates or other identification cards having public probative value and to verify his age. If the other party neglected to perform such duty of care and sold alcoholic beverages to him without confirming the fact that he is a juvenile, the other party has failed to do so (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Do8039, Apr. 23, 2004). In light of the following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, the defendant sold alcoholic beverages with the awareness that he is a juvenile.

It is reasonable to view it.

(1) D, etc., if external, have been sufficiently suspected of being juveniles.

② The Defendant did not verify the identity card D, etc. on the day of the instant case.

(3) G, D, or G is inserted in a restaurant operated by the defendant in conformity with the investigative agency and before, he/she is the defendant's identification card.