The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. It is true that the Defendant, like the facts charged in this case, sells liquor to E and F, a juvenile, from “D” operated by the Defendant.

However, since H, who is an employee at the time, inspected the identification card of the above E and F, confirmed that he was adult and sold alcoholic beverages, there was no intention to commit a crime that sells alcoholic beverages to juveniles.

Nevertheless, the court below found the defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case. The court below erred by misunderstanding the facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant (a fine of 500,000 won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The following facts are acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below as to the assertion of mistake of facts: (i) He, E, and F consistently stated in the investigative agency and court of the court below that he was not subject to the identification examination when he went to and went to the investigation agency and court of the court below; (ii) one of the two juveniles (E, F) revealed in the police control process, while the witness of the court of the court below inspected the identification card, was one of the two juveniles (E, F) who was found to have conducted the identification examination, and the other one was the one who did not undergo the identification examination; and (ii) if the identification examination was conducted like H's statement, it seems that E and F continued to have been the same table. In light of the fact that the identification examination was conducted with H's statement, it is difficult for the defendant to easily believe that he was conducted the identification examination; and (iii) the defendant was operated with the juvenile evidence examination, but there is no reason to suspect that he was a juvenile under the circumstances of this case.