The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the defendant received an order from an adult guest to provide him/her with such an order, and the minor person D delayed arrival, and there was no fact that the defendant sold the alcohol to the juvenile.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (an amount of KRW 500,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Although the Defendant led to the confession of the facts charged in this case in the court of original instance, the Defendant argued that the confession made by the Defendant in the court of first instance differs from the oral statement in the appellate court, it is doubtful that the probative value or credibility of the confession is doubtful solely on the ground that the confession made by the Defendant in the court of first instance differs from the oral statement in the appellate court.

In determining the credibility of confessions, the credibility of confessions should be determined by taking into account the following circumstances, which are acknowledged by the court below as being duly adopted and investigated by the court below, namely, whether the contents of confessions are objectively rational, what the motive or reason of confessions are, what is the background leading up to confessions, and what does not conflict with or contradictory to confessions among other evidence than confessions (see Supreme Court Decisions 2008Do1994, Jun. 26, 2008; 2010Do2556, Apr. 29, 2010, etc.). In other words, D, as a juvenile at an investigative agency, stated that the defendant d was drinking by ordering alcohols at the time of the defendant's operation, and that the confirmation of identifications at the time of this case was not made.

In light of the facts stated, the defendant can sufficiently recognize the fact that he sells alcoholic beverages to juveniles, and the credibility of confession made by the defendant in the court of original instance can be recognized as to the facts charged of this case.

The court below is just in finding the defendant guilty of committing the crime of this case, and it is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts and legal principles as alleged by the defendant.