The defendant shall be innocent.

1. The summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant is a person who runs “Eju” in the Seoul Jung-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D and the second floor.

No one shall sell, lend, distribute to juveniles drugs harmful to juveniles, etc. or provide them free of charge.

Nevertheless, around 18:37 July 30, 2013, the Defendant sold 59,000 won at the market price, including 1 illness and 500c 3 residues, which are drugs harmful to juveniles, without verifying the identification card of F (G) which was a juvenile who was admitted to customers from the above “Eju” store.

2. Although the Defendant stated that the Defendant, the captain of the instant business place, was responsible for the sale of alcoholic beverages to juveniles at the time of the police investigation, the Defendant was aware of the fact that the Defendant was responsible for the sale of alcoholic beverages to juveniles at the instant business place, the Defendant did not actually sell alcoholic beverages to F who was juveniles at the instant business place.

3. In full view of the facts and circumstances as delineated below, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor and examined by the court is insufficient to recognize the facts charged of this case without reasonable doubt, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge them.

F only stated that “employee” was written in the written statement submitted to the police on the date of crackdown and did not specify who was ordered, and this court stated to the effect that “I do not memory who was ordered, but is the same as that of the Defendant, and that I do not memory that I do not work, etc., who was part of the instant business establishment, was personnel of the Defendant.”

B. On the date of control, I, a traffic control police officer, prepared a statement to the effect that “I did not conduct an identification card inspection to the Defendant, who is the head of the store, and the Defendant stated that F did not conduct an identification card inspection with the knowledge of H et al. that he was a part-time student of the instant business establishment, and that F did not conduct an identification card inspection with the knowledge of the same.” In this court, I also confirmed the text of the monitor in the instant business establishment.