The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the defendant's offer of liquor was made from situations where it is objectively difficult to doubt the person who has access to liquor as a juvenile, and the defendant did not constitute a crime since he had no intention to offer liquor to the juvenile under the age of 19 years, and the indictment of this case constitutes a prosecution by naval investigation and constitutes a case where the procedure is violated by law and becomes null and void. However, the court below found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case. Thus, the court below erred by misapprehending

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion that there was no intention to offer alcoholic beverages, in light of the contents of the relevant legal principles and the legislative purport of the Juvenile Protection Act, the owner or employee of a business establishment prohibited from allowing access to juveniles must verify the age of the juvenile based on resident registration certificates or evidence with public probative value of age to the age of the juvenile (Supreme Court Decision 93Do2914 delivered on January 14, 1994), and if a juvenile enters the business establishment by failing to take any measures to confirm the age in violation of the duty to verify the age, barring any special circumstance, at least do negligence in violation of the Juvenile Protection Act to the owner or employee of the business (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Do8039 delivered on April 23, 2004, Supreme Court Decision 2007Do70 delivered on November 16, 2007). We affirm the judgment of the court below that the defendant was duly aware of the following facts by taking into account the following facts.