Defendant shall be punished by a fine of one million won.

If the defendant fails to pay the above fine, 50,000 won shall be one day.

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is a person who operates a general restaurant in the name of "E" in Ulsan Nam-gu D.

No one shall sell drugs harmful to juveniles, etc. to juveniles.

Nevertheless, at around July 22, 2013, the Defendant sold three disease-free alcoholic beverages, which are harmful substances to juveniles, without confirming the age of F(n, female, age 18) at the above restaurant.

Summary of Evidence

1. Legal statement of witness G;

1. Statement made by F and H in the second protocol of the trial;

1. Each police statement made to F and H;

1. A written statement;

1. Copy of a report on regulating the amusement business place;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to writings, copies of business registration certificates, and control field photographs;

1. Relevant Article 58 of the Juvenile Protection Act and Articles 58 subparagraph 3 and 28 (1) of the same Act concerning criminal facts and the selection of fines;

1. Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. Judgment on the assertion by the defendant and his/her defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The argument that the defendant and the defense counsel sold alcoholic beverages to F. However, the defendant and the defense counsel asserted that F is not guilty as they sold alcoholic beverages to F. However, since F was examined an identification card when F was in a restaurant and confirmed that F was not a juvenile, since F was aware of it at the time of this case.

2. Determination

A. The gist of H, F, and G’s testimony (1) is as follows: “The legal summary of H’s testimony was “not only on July 22, 2013 but also on the day before it was inspected the identification card; there was no lending of one’s identification card to F; and F’s legal summary of the statement did not appear to have been inspected the identification card on July 22, 2013.”

There is a few years ago, but it is not clear that the identification card was asked and presented.

At the time of the control of this case, the defendant asked for the statement that "the defendant presented his identification card to the defendant" when he was investigated by an investigative agency with another person's identification card.

Even after the telephone, the defendant's identification card is also the one of the other.