The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Since the Defendant had presented identification cards of E, F, G, and H and confirmed that all of them were 19 years of age or older, and sold alcoholic beverages, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts.

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

2. Determination

A. In light of the legislative intent of the Juvenile Protection Act regarding the assertion of misunderstanding of facts, the employer and employees of a business establishment prohibited from allowing juveniles to enter the relevant business establishment for the purpose of protecting juveniles.

As such, barring any circumstances where it is objectively difficult to suspect access as a juvenile, the owner or employee of a business establishment prohibited from accessing a juvenile shall verify the age of the juvenile on the basis of resident registration certificate or evidence with public probative value of age sufficient to the degree of age. If a juvenile enters the business establishment by failing to take any measures for age verification in violation of the duty of age verification and failing to take any measures for age verification, barring any special circumstance, the owner or employee of the business establishment shall be deemed to have dolusent intent to violate the Juvenile Protection Act due to a violation of the aforementioned legal provisions (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Do8039, Apr. 23, 2004). The court below duly adopted and investigated the evidence, i.e., the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, i.e., E, F, investigation agency, and H from the date of this case to the court below’s trial.