The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The sentence of sentence against the defendant shall be suspended.

1. In light of the prosecutor’s grounds of appeal (misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles), Articles 1, 28(1), 28(3), and 59 subparag. 6 of the Juvenile Protection Act, where a seller of alcoholic beverages sells alcoholic beverages to a juvenile without verifying his age, the manufacturer’s willful negligence in selling harmful drugs should be acknowledged unless there are special circumstances.

At the time of the instant case, the Defendant, without properly verifying the C’s age, sold alcoholic beverages without recognizing the fact that he was a juvenile.

Nevertheless, the lower court rendered a not guilty verdict on the facts charged of this case, which erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby affecting the conclusion of judgment

2. Determination

A. The Defendant is a person who operates a restaurant business in Suwon-si B 10th floor in Suwon-si.

No one shall sell drugs harmful to juveniles, such as alcoholic beverages, to juveniles.

Nevertheless, on January 4, 2015, the Defendant violated the Juvenile Protection Act by selling 90,000 won, such as beer, beer, beer, beer, beef, swine, beer, brush, brush, etc., to C (17 , Nam) who had access to the said establishment without confirming the age limit of 0:50,00.

B. The lower court’s determination requires that a person who sells harmful drugs, etc. to juveniles be punished by applying Article 59 subparag. 6 and Article 28 subparag. 1 of the Juvenile Protection Act shall be intentional in accordance with the principle of the Criminal Act. The Defendant requested D more likely than C to present identification cards and confirmed that the person does not constitute a juvenile under the Juvenile Protection Act. The Defendant appears to be more likely to be a juvenile under the said Act. Since D accompanied with C at the time, it is difficult to readily dismiss the Defendant’s vindication that C had a large number of celebbles and did not verify identification cards as adult, and if the Defendant was supposed for providing alcoholic beverages to juveniles, it is difficult to readily dismiss the Defendant’s vindication that he did not present identification cards.