The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. A summary of the Defendant’s appeal grounds (misunderstanding of facts) (hereinafter “Defendant”), on the day of the instant case, the Defendant requested G to verify the identity of G when Earba F provided 1 sicks of a week to G day, and presented his resident registration certificate only to G to confirm it, and provided him with one alcohol remaining at his own time.

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case, thereby misunderstanding the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. As alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court also presented the following facts: (a) the Defendant: (b) the Defendant heard the order from F; (c) requested G to present an identification card to G work; (d) the Defendant presented the resident registration certificate only; (c) and (d) the Defendant offered one (1) a small week of 1.

The court below rejected the defendant's assertion and found the defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case on the grounds as stated in its reasoning.

The circumstances of the lower court and the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court, i.e., G, under investigation by the investigative agency, (i) the employee was aware of the identification card inspection and (ii) the employee was at the first time at the restaurant operated by the Defendant on the day of the instant case, and (iii) the employee was brought about one-half week.

The defendant examined his identification card and presented another person's identification card at the time when the defendant inspected his identification card when he did so.

If a photograph and a comparison are judged in the idea, it is known as a matter of course not in the proposal, but in the same manner, it is known.

A restaurant operated by the defendant is regarded as a drinking among students without an identification card inspection.

“The statement was made to the effect that it was “,” and the court of the court below made a statement to the same effect as a substitute, and the ice person is not memory specifically or is the number of softs.