The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant shall be innocent.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal was confirmed by E and F through verification of identification card prior to the date and time stated in the facts constituting the crime in the judgment below, and thus, even if the identification card was not confirmed at the time stated in the facts constituting the crime in the judgment below, there was no intention to sell alcoholic beverages to juveniles.

However, at the time of the instant case, E/F, a juvenile, presented another person’s identification card upon the Defendant’s request to present his/her identification card at the other main points in the Defendant’s main points, and ordered alcoholic beverages. Although such E/F’s statement at the original court was not reliable, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged based on E/F’s statement, etc., the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is a person who operates an ordinary restaurant with the trade name “D” in the member C and 106 of Ansan-si, Ansan-si.

No one shall sell, etc. alcoholic beverages that are harmful to juveniles to juveniles.

Nevertheless, at around 4:00 on January 30, 2016, the Defendant sold 47,900 won, including 3 concurrent weeks, to juveniles E, F, etc., a harmful drug harmful to juveniles.

B. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant charges based on the evidence in its holding.

(c)

The burden of proof for the facts constituting an offense prosecuted in a criminal trial for the above deliberation shall be borne by the public prosecutor, and the conviction of guilt shall be based on the evidence of probative value, which makes the judge sure that the facts charged are true beyond a reasonable doubt. Thus, if there is no such evidence, even if there is doubt as to the defendant's guilt, it shall be determined with the benefit of the defendant (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 91Do1385, Aug. 13, 1991; 2002Do562, Dec. 24, 2002). The court below and the court below.