The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The gist of the grounds of appeal is as follows: (a) the Defendant, at the time of the instant case, did not know that he was a juvenile of F and G, and sold alcohol after having confirmed his employee H as a resident registration certificate of F and G.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. The judgment of the court below also asserted the same purport as this part of the grounds for appeal, and the court below rejected the defendant's above assertion on the following grounds: "The court below consistently stated from the investigative agency to the court below that the defendant had not inspected the resident registration certificate by the defendant or his employee; G stated that the defendant had a telephone called in the course of investigation into the crime of violation of the Juvenile Protection Act against the crime of this case to the effect that he had proved his identification card at the time."

B. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the record, the lower court’s above determination is justifiable, and the Defendant’s above assertion is without merit.

① At the time of the instant case, the Defendant received a resident registration certificate for F and G through H, an employee, and stated that he was alive in 192, 1994, each of his adult age. H inspected the resident registration certificate of F and G at an investigative agency, F and G, and stated that it was born in 193 to 194.

As pointed out by the Defendant, it is true that F had the resident registration certificate of H with an adult Dong-dong, without his identification card at the time of the instant case.

However, the above K is the birth of the defendant and H in 195 at the time of the instant case.