The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the defendant can be found liable for violation of the Juvenile Protection Act due to the sale of alcoholic beverages, but the court below sold alcoholic beverages upon knowing that the defendant was a juvenile.

For the reasons that it is difficult to see that the defendant was acquitted, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged of this case shall not sell alcoholic beverages that are harmful to juveniles under the Juvenile Protection Act to juveniles.

Nevertheless, the Defendant, at around 04:20 on August 25, 2014, worked as an employee from the “D” restaurant located in Sungnam-si, Sungnam-si, and sold the said restaurant to Juvenile E (15 years old), F (15 years old), a juvenile harmful drug, for the first time.

B. The lower court acquitted the Defendant on the following grounds that the instant facts charged constituted a case where there is no proof of crime.

1) The burden of proof of criminal facts prosecuted in a criminal trial shall be borne by the prosecutor, and the conviction shall be based on the evidence of probative value that makes a judge sure that the facts charged are true to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt. Thus, if there is no evidence to form such a conviction, even if there is no doubt as to the defendant's conviction, it shall be judged as the defendant's interest (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2006Do1716, May 26, 2006; 2007Do163, Nov. 30, 207). 2) The following circumstances can be acknowledged by the records, namely, ① one person at the time when the defendant entered into Korea with E and G at the time, and the remaining two persons were born in 1993, and the remaining persons were born in 195.

The consistently asserted, 2. E is the defendant's identification card in the police.