The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. In light of the consistent statement of the grounds of appeal E and the content of the Defendant’s text message sent to E, etc., there was dolusent intent in regard to the Defendant’s sales of alcoholic beverages to juveniles E by failing to take any measures to confirm the age of E at the time of the instant crime

However, the lower court rendered a judgment of not guilty on the ground that the Defendant did not have any intention, by misunderstanding of facts or misapprehending the legal doctrine.

2. No person who is the summary of the facts charged shall sell drugs harmful to juveniles, such as alcoholic beverages, to juveniles;

Nevertheless, on October 24, 2014, at around 23:00, the Defendant sold to E (18 Does) a juvenile and three persons working for E (18 Does) a juvenile on his own in Pyeongtaek-si C and the Defendant sold 7 Macjus a week.

3. On the judgment of the court below, in full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the records, the possibility that the defendant was aware of the age of E as 95 years, and the possibility that the remaining behaviors except E were confirmed cannot be ruled out. Thus, the defendant intentionally sold alcohol to juveniles by neglecting his/her duty to verify his/her identification card.

It is difficult to conclude it.

Based on the judgment, the defendant was acquitted.

1. E is the birth of the Defendant’s friendly job offers F, and the Defendant was aware of such circumstances.

② From May 2014, E began in writing according to the type he was aware of the son’s face from May 2014, and the face seems to be flexible. The statement of E that the Defendant did not examine the identification card once in the past is difficult to believe (E is punished for the past, but it cannot be ruled out the possibility that the Defendant carried the son’s identification card after holding the 95-year identification card, such as the Defendant’s statement).