The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the fact-misunderstanding and misunderstanding of the legal principles and the fact that the uniforms, such as cremation, were similar to those of adults; as if they were adults, resident registration certificates, etc. were illegally exercised; as such, the Defendant and his/her employees, by deceiving the aforementioned juveniles, misleads them to be adults; and thoroughly educated them to verify the status of minors, the Defendant did not have any intent to approve the above juveniles’ entry; and the Defendant neglected the management and supervision of the E as the person against whom they were employed.

shall not be deemed to exist.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (one million won penalty) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In light of the purport and content of the Juvenile Protection Act as to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts and legal principles, since, as seen in the instant case, a business owner, such as the main shop, who sells alcoholic beverages harmful to juveniles, is responsible for not selling alcoholic beverages to juveniles for the protection of juveniles. Thus, if alcoholic beverages are sold at the main shop, etc., the subject’s age should be verified based on the resident registration certificate or evidence with public probative value to the degree of age, and if there are doubts such as the difference between the photograph and the real on the resident registration certificate presented by the subject, the case that the juvenile purchases alcoholic beverages by using another person’s resident registration certificate in order to conceal his/her identity and age, the case that the juvenile purchases them is obligated to take measures for additional age verification, such as making a detailed comparison of the photograph and real on the resident registration certificate, or displaying his/her address or resident registration number on

The following facts and circumstances, i.e., E, which are acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court in this case (see Supreme Court Decision 2014Do5173, Jul. 10, 2014).