The defendant shall be innocent.

1. On February 16, 2015, the Defendant sold 4 soldiers, who are drugs harmful to juveniles, to the juvenile E (the age of 16) and 7, at the D restaurant operated by the Defendant in Gwangju-si, not verifying the age of 16, at around 19:53.

2. Determination

A. The key issue of the instant case is whether the instant case was not so drinking, but whether it was sold.

According to the evidence examined by this court, it can be acknowledged that the juvenile E (16 years of age) and seven (7) persons (hereinafter “E, etc.”) have 4 soldiers in the Dcafeteria operated by the Defendant (hereinafter “instant restaurant”). However, the Defendant denies that there was no fact that he had sold the 4 soldiers to E, etc.

However, the burden of proof for the crime prosecuted in a criminal trial is the prosecutor, and the conviction should be based on the evidence of probative value, which makes the judge feel true to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt. Thus, if there is no such evidence, it is doubtful that the defendant is guilty even if there is no such evidence.

Even if there is no choice but to judge the interests of the defendant.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Do4737, Feb. 24, 2006). Therefore, a prosecutor bears the burden of proving the above issues.

B. We examine the probative value of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor that conforms to the sales facts in order to establish the sales facts of the No. 4 soldiers.

1) The E’s statement and the Defendant’s author’s seal A) prepared at the police investigation stage of the police investigation, stating that “I am together with the Defendant and franchis in the instant restaurant, I am together with the franchis.” At the police investigation stage, the Defendant prepared a letter of apology stating that “I am dysnick with the franchis and brus in the instant restaurant. I did not confirm the identification card.”

B. However, E is present at this court as a witness.