The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Although the defendant did not sell alcohol to F and E on the day of the appeal, the court below rejected the defendant's assertion and sentenced him guilty, and there is an error of law by misunderstanding the fact and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is a person who operates a singing practice hall in the name of “D” on the first floor of the Cheongju-si, substantial C underground of the Cheongju-si.

No singing practice room business operator shall provide alcoholic beverages to customers.

Nevertheless, on April 10, 2016, the Defendant sold alcoholic beverages by providing three customers E, etc. with one bottle and three cans per week in the instant singing practice place.

B. The judgment of the court below is consistent with the following circumstances: ① F and E consistently make a statement from the investigative agency to the court of the court of the court below that “the amount of drinking alcohol in Defendant’s singing room was only one bottle, and the Defendant got to drink two times a week,” ② F, etc. are not consistent with cans or three cans about the amount of drinking beer at the time, but F, etc. was under the influence of alcohol at the time, and the amount of beer was not an important issue in this case; thus, it can be seen that memory cannot be seen as falling short of credibility due to some changes in the statement; ③ When F, etc. written statements are used in the police station, F, etc., the Defendant had no reason to cancel the payment from the Defendant’s credit card sales to F, etc., the Defendant’s voluntary cancellation of the payment from the Defendant’s credit card sales to F, etc.