The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts) was examined by E, an employee of the Defendant, on 11 juvenile, 10 adult identification cards were presented, and H did not have identification cards but sold alcoholic beverages as 20 out of 10 to verify all the remaining identification cards.

Therefore, there was no perception that E is a juvenile.

2. The judgment of the court below also asserted the same purport, and the court below, in light of the circumstances acknowledged by the evidence adopted by the court below, had the defendant's employee E, at least, had the intention to sell juvenile alcohol to the defendant's employee E at least.

I explained that the defendant's assertion was rejected.

The reasoning of the judgment below is closely examined by comparing the reasoning of the judgment below and the defendant's assertion. ① Even if following the defendant's argument, E does not have an identification card to H, and even if the age of H was not verified by evidence with public probative value, the remaining behaviors presented an adult identification card and sold alcoholic beverages to H as 20. Thus, even if other juveniles except H presented an adult identification card, in light of the degree of duty to verify the age offered to the business owner and the circumstances where juveniles have access to a harmful business establishment with other adults similar to those of the same age, it is difficult to view that the act of selling alcoholic beverages is exempted without properly verifying the age of juveniles, solely on the ground that most ages are verified as adults, and it is difficult to view that the act of selling alcoholic beverages is exempt (it is necessary to verify the age of alcoholic beverages conducted with H at the time when following the statement of E).

In light of these circumstances, H's age needs to be verified through identification cards, etc., and in case of U, E is stored in smartphones.