The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

On the basis of the summary of the grounds for appeal, the lower court found the Defendant not guilty of the facts charged in this case erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

A. The defendant operated in the court of the court below

D At the main point, juvenile F, G, H, I, and E (hereinafter referred to as “F, etc.”) who performed alcohol was present and testified as a witness.

It is true that there is little disagreement between F and the person who has presented a credit card or physical card among the original legal statements of F, etc., and the defendant's statement about who is not the first person who did not confirm his identity.

However, F et al. consistently made a statement on the fact that the defendant did not conduct the identification card inspection and did not possess the identification card at the time.

It is reasonable to see that the detailed contents, such as who presented a physical card among five persons at the time when about one year has passed after the occurrence of the case, are inconsistent with each other. Rather, such content may be seen as a factor to enhance the credibility of the relevant testimony in that it proves that the F, etc. has not conspired to make a consistent statement in advance.

After the report of this case, the fact that any person does not possess an identification card is consistent with the F et al. as a result of the inspection of the F et al. at the police investigation stage.

B. The Defendant: (a) was unaware of whether F was a juvenile; (b) was aware of whether F was a juvenile; (c) was inspecting five identification cards; and (d) was presented by F, etc.

This case was denied.

However, even if the appearance of F, etc. is taken place, it can be easily identified as a juvenile, and five identification cards have been inspected for all of them.

However, under CCTV, only the face of the examination of the two card in which the defendant and the main employee are unknown whether he/she is an identification card, and there is still a forgery of his/her identification card by juveniles, F, etc.

In that it is difficult to see it, the defendant's defense is changed.