The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

1. The summary of the grounds of appeal 1) misunderstanding of the legal principles and misunderstanding of the legal principles, the Defendant confirmed that he was not a juvenile with three female customers by presenting an identification card, and sold the alcohol. Since D, a juvenile with whom the Defendant was unaware, was in collusion with the above customer on the instant drinking house, the Defendant did not have any awareness that he would sell alcohol to juveniles.

2) The sentence of the lower court (an amount of KRW 700,000) that is unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. 1) According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, the lower court determined that the Defendant constituted a crime of violating the Juvenile Protection Act, on the grounds that the Defendant could recognize the fact that he sold alcoholic beverages to D as stated in the facts charged in the instant case.

2) In a case where a person operating a restaurant for the deliberation and decision of a party had only adults at the time of drinking alcohol to the persons who have entered the restaurant, and they have drinking alcoholic beverages later, and later became joint with juveniles, there was a circumstance that the restaurant operator would have predicted that the juvenile later was joint with juveniles, or that the juvenile later she would drink part of the remaining alcoholic beverages, unless he or she was aware of it after the juvenile was joint with other persons, and that he or she would drink part of the remaining alcoholic beverages in the last year, unless he or she was aware that the juvenile later was joint with other persons.

Even if an operator of a restaurant sells alcoholic beverages, which are harmful drugs to juveniles, under Article 59 (6) of the Juvenile Protection Act.

Nor can it be said (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2001Do6032, Jan. 11, 2002; 2008Do11282, Apr. 9, 2009). The following facts are acknowledged according to the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below.

① On July 7, 2016, the Defendant inspected the identification card of three female customers who had been engaged in the instant drinking house between around 23:00 to 24:00, and confirmed that he/she is an adult, and sold sulfur and alcohol upon receiving orders from him/her. After doing so, the Defendant sold the foregoing customers.