The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor of the grounds for appeal, the Defendant is acknowledged to have sold alcoholic beverages with the knowledge that E, etc. is a juvenile.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant on the ground that the defendant knew E as adults and sold alcoholic beverages.

2. The Defendant consistently asserted that, since the police, the Defendant had consistently conducted an identification card when E had been on the Defendant’s restaurant around early 2013, E presented the adult’s resident registration certificate and thereafter, E did not conduct an identification card inspection separately considering E as an adult at the time of the instant case, and two persons identified as a juvenile later during the E’s day-day day-day day-day day-day day-day day-day day-day day-day day-day day-of-day day-day day-day day-day day-of-day day-day day-day day-day day-day day-day day-day day-day day-day day

The lower court stated that, at each time, the Defendant was not in charge of the instant restaurant 3 and 4 times at the police station, and the Defendant stated in the court of the lower court that he did not examine the identification card at each time, and stated in the same content in the court of the lower court. It stated that the Defendant was aware by the Defendant that, upon being examined in the police box as the instant case, he was aware of the identity card that he had previously presented the identification card to E and became an adult, up to the time he had been aware of the identity card to B.

In fact, the previous statement was partially reversed that the day before the enforcement of the instant case was not well memory, and in fact, it was subject to a disposition of suspension of indictment on the purport that E acquired and embezzled the resident registration certificate lost by another person, and if the Defendant did not call for E in the police box, it would have been difficult to reveal such fact. In light of the fact that the Defendant did not have any means to confirm the identity card of E, the statement at the investigation agency and the court of original instance is difficult to believe, and the witness F is in the court of original instance.