The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The sentence of punishment shall be suspended against the Defendants.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant B was an employee of the instant juveniles working at a nearby business place, and there was no perception that the instant juveniles were juveniles by entering the instant restaurant along with the adult store. (2) Defendant A operated the instant restaurant and provided thorough education for juveniles to not provide alcoholic beverages through I. As such, Defendant B did not neglect to exercise due care and supervision over their duties.

B. The court below's decision on the unreasonable sentencing is unfair because the punishment imposed on the Defendants (a fine of KRW 700,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) Determination of the assertion of mistake of facts as to Defendant B's conduct, including Defendant B's juveniles, entered a restaurant and ordered the drinking. In fact, where juveniles have performed the drinking together with their daily behaviors, it constitutes a "act of selling alcoholic beverages to juveniles" under Article 51 subparagraph 8 of the Juvenile Protection Act. In this case, it shall not be deemed that the adult's conduct of drinking or calculating the drinking value is different (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Do709, Sept. 25, 2008). According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, it was difficult for the above youth to divide into the restaurant near the restaurant of this case into the date and time stated in the facts charged, and the date and place of this case, and the fact that the above youth had not been aware that he had worked as an employee, or that the above youth had not been aware that he had been working as an adult-friendly juvenile's age into the restaurant of this case.