The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant did not know that E was a minor at the time of the instant case.

B. The sentence of the lower court (one million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The lower court’s determination on the assertion of factual misunderstanding is as follows: ① the Defendant, at the time of the instant case, did not ask E at the time of asking for an identification card even if he/she sold tobacco to E; ② E (2) was a middle school student as 15 years old at the time of the instant case; ③ the Defendant, at the early 2015 when he/she sold tobacco to E, was aware of E as an adult, by presenting an identification card of Nan F (year 1993) at the time of the first death of tobacco.

Although there is a change, it is not easy to understand that at the time the third grade student of the middle school believed E to be the age of the three to fourth grade student of the university, and the defendant stated that he was not a person who knows E in the police (the defendant stated at the police that he is not a person who knows E face, but thereafter, that he saw tobacco by presenting his identification card of F.

Upon learning of the statement from the police, the Defendant recognized that the Defendant was a minor, taking full account of the fact that the convenience store in this case was a convenience store in selling tobacco to students, as seen above from the court of the lower court’s trial, and (4) according to the statement of E, the convenience store in this case was also a convenience store in selling tobacco.

may be seen.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below to the same purport is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of facts alleged by the defendant, and the defendant's assertion of mistake is rejected.

B. In light of the fact that the Defendant was punished for the same crime and the circumstances after the Defendant committed the crime, etc., the lower court’s punishment is too excessive and unfair.