The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal, except for E, sold alcohol to adult E, and later, the lower court found the Defendant guilty, despite having failed to know the fact that he was a juvenile, did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the crime of violating the Juvenile Protection Act.

2. The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the court below, i.e., Eul entered a "D restaurant" where the two-lane defendant works in an investigative agency after drinking alcohol in a different place, i.e., the witness I also stated that he and the witness I called a "D restaurant" and placed an order for drinking alcohol. ② The defendant was aware that I and F are adults of the 'D restaurant' in the E' while driving, the defendant did not take a proper measure to confirm the age of drinking alcohol, such as requesting a presentation of identification card, although he could be aware that the defendant was a juvenile at the time of receiving the order from E's driving, he could not be aware that the defendant was a juvenile, but did not take proper measures to confirm his age, and thus, he could not be found to have sold alcohol to the defendant including E, and thus, the defendant's assertion that he had sold alcohol intentionally due to the crime of violating the Juvenile Protection Act.

3. Therefore, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, since the defendant's appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.