The defendant shall be innocent.

From July 16, 2012 to July 23, 2012, the Defendant in the factory office is a person who operates general restaurants in the name of “C” in the name of “C,” and the Defendant in the factory office is from July 23, 2012 due to a violation of the rules (Provision of alcoholic beverages to juveniles) by the head of Sungju-Gun.

8.22. A business suspension order was issued.

Nevertheless, at around 18:00 on July 24, 2012, the Defendant operated the business in violation of the order of business suspension by cooking and selling the galle and the galleb and the gimchi gir in the above restaurant to D(39 years of age) and 1 (40 years of age) and 1 other (2 teams).

Judgment

The Defendant consistently denies from the police to this court.

In addition, the witness's statement in the second protocol of trial, the witness F's statement in the fourth protocol of trial, and the police's statement in the fourth protocol of trial are supported by the defendant's statement denying the facts charged.

In order to examine the admissibility of the statement, the admissibility of the evidence is examined.

The provisions of Article 312 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act concerning the admissibility of evidence of the written statement are as follows.

A public prosecutor or judicial police officer shall make a protocol which contains statements made by persons other than the defendant according to lawful procedures and methods. The protocol is prepared in compliance with such legitimate procedures and methods, and its contents are the same as those written before a public prosecutor or judicial police officer, and it is proved by a statement at a preparatory hearing or during a public trial, video-recording, or any other objective method. When the defendant or defense counsel could have examined the original person

Provided, That it shall be limited to the case where it is proved that the statement recorded in the protocol was made in a particularly reliable state.

D Opinion to the effect that the protocol of statement prepared by the prosecutor acting on behalf of the public prosecutor is written differently from the contents stated before the prosecutor acting on behalf of the public prosecutor.