The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The sentence of sentence against the defendant shall be suspended.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant had a duty to verify the age of five juveniles by fully verifying the identification card.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. (1) In light of the spirit of the substantial direct and psychological principle adopted by the Korean Criminal Procedure Act, unless there are special circumstances to deem that the first instance court’s determination on the credibility of the statement made by a witness of the first instance was clearly erroneous, or in view of the results of the first instance court’s examination and the results of additional examination of evidence not later than the closing of argument in the appellate trial, maintaining the first instance court’s determination on the credibility of the statement made by a witness of the first instance court is clearly unfair, the appellate court should respect the determination on the credibility of the statement made

(2) On November 24, 2006, the lower court acknowledged the credibility of the testimony of E, F, H, I, G, etc. and sentenced the Defendant to the charges of this case by rejecting the credibility of K’s testimony, and rendered the judgment of the lower court on each of the above testimony clearly erroneous. (2) The lower court erred by misapprehending the credibility of each of the above testimony.

It is not clearly unreasonable to maintain the judgment of the court below on the credibility of the judgment.

(3) Comprehensively taking account of other evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below on each testimony such as E, F, H, I, and G, the defendant can be deemed to have sold alcohol without checking the age of five juveniles such as E, etc. Therefore, this part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

B. In full view of all the sentencing conditions in the instant records and arguments of unreasonable sentencing and the Defendant’s primary offender, the lower court’s sentence is too unreasonable.

3. Accordingly, the Defendant’s appeal is reasonable.