The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant shall be innocent.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

The defendant did not have access to F and G as well as the defendant did not have access to F and G because two exclusive staff members in charge confirm the age of the customer at the instant head office of the defendant's operation of the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts. The defendant or the above exclusive staff members did not know the fact of access to F and G, even if they knew of the fact of access to the house, it did not have access to F and G by means of obtaining identification, etc., by possessing the identification card of other adult people, or by obtaining identification, even if they knew that they

In addition, H, I, and J first issued an order to enter the instant Hop and enter the instant Hop and enter F, G, and thus, the Defendant did not sell alcoholic beverages to F, and G.

The court below's sentence (one million won of fine) against the defendant claiming unfair sentencing is too unreasonable.

The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is the person who actually runs the E head office in Suwon-si, Suwon-si.

A business establishment harmful to juveniles shall not allow juveniles to enter the business establishment harmful to juveniles.

Nevertheless, the Defendant did not confirm the age of juvenile F (17 years old, female), G (17 years old, female), etc., which was found at around 22:00 on October 28, 201, and entered as a customer without confirming the age of juvenile F (17 years old, female).

No person shall sell alcoholic beverages to juveniles under the age of 19 years.

Nevertheless, the Defendant sold a total amount of KRW 39,00c 2,00c, 1 bottled, and Naju to three others, which entered the same as the preceding paragraph, and violated the rules of practice by selling a total of KRW 39,000,00.

Judgment

The ex officio defense counsel on the permission of access by juveniles to a business establishment harmful to juveniles (the facts charged as mentioned above (A) is asserted in the summary of oral proceedings (Supplementary) dated October 8, 2013, but it is not contained in the grounds of appeal, and it is examined ex officio.

The former Juvenile Protection Act (amended by Act No. 11048 of September 15, 201), which is a applicable provision to this part of the facts charged, has been amended.