The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Reasons for appeal;

A. The Defendant, misunderstanding of facts, had a mature appearance of E, etc., leading to the death of a juvenile.

B. The lower court’s sentence that is unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below regarding the assertion of mistake of facts, the following facts are acknowledged: (a) the table table of the defendant was 3; (b) the customers were 6 to 7, and the customers were 5 to 5,000 accommodates only a maximum of 6 to 7, and (c) the defendant, without any other employee, was mixed with the kitchen, ice, ice, and Kabter management; (c) on the day of the instant case, he was 16 years old; (d) all of them were 16 years old juveniles; (d) The defendant was able to take measures to verify the age of E, etc. on the ground that he was able to drink with two adult male, separately from other table table, and the defendant did not take all measures to confirm the age of E, etc.

In the end, the Defendant, even though not having many customers in a narrow place, sold alcoholic beverages with dolusence while recognizing the fact that he is a juvenile without taking a minimum measure such as asking the age of 16 years old, E, etc. or confirming his identification card, etc.

It is reasonable to see that at that time E and F wear both winterer and hat, or that at the time of the subjective criteria of the defendant, the key fell in light of the subjective criteria of the defendant.

Since the court below's conviction is not different, there is an error of mistake of fact that the court below found guilty of the facts charged.

shall not be deemed to exist.

B. According to the argument and record of the instant case’s determination of the unfair argument of sentencing, the lower court appears to have reasonably decided by fully considering the various sentencing grounds asserted by the Defendant, and there is no special circumstance to ex post facto change the sentencing.

3. Thus, the defendant's appeal is without merit, and Article 364 of the Criminal Procedure Act is not reasonable.