The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. At the time of claiming a misunderstanding of facts, the Defendant, not the instant juveniles, sold a 1994 student identification card to two other adults who confirmed that he/she was born in 194, and was under control by the police when the instant juveniles were replaced by the instant juveniles.

Therefore, the Defendant did not sell alcoholic beverages to juveniles as stated in the facts charged of the instant case.

B. The lower court’s sentence (one million won of fine) on the grounds of unreasonable sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below: (i) although the statements made at each investigation agency and court of the court below by the juvenile E and F and their respective statements are not clear or consistent in specific parts; (ii) at least, they have consistently made a statement from the investigative agency to the court of the court below to the effect that they sold their identification cards to their own without identification cards; (iii) there are no special circumstances to make them false statements to the contrary; (iv) they are sufficiently reliable; and (v) the police officers dispatched to the scene at the time were allowed to provide alcohol to the juvenile at the time; and (v) the Defendant did not seem to have asserted that “the juvenile was replaced by the juvenile at the time of regulating that they were sent to the scene,” the Defendant’s statements were sufficiently recognizable and inconsistent; and (v) at the time of selling alcohol to the juvenile at the time, they did not recognize that they were alcoholic beverages to be sold to the juvenile at least 20330 or 204.