The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is as follows: (a) the Defendant had been confirmed by presenting identification cards from E, which had been written in the Defendant’s head office before committing the instant crime, and (b) did not recognize E as a juvenile at the time of committing the instant crime; (c) however, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts, thereby finding the Defendant guilty.

2. In light of the contents and purport of the Juvenile Protection Act and the Enforcement Decree thereof, persons who sell alcoholic beverages, etc. are given a very strict responsibility for not selling alcoholic beverages to juveniles for the purpose of protecting juveniles.

As such, the other party has a duty of care to demand the other party to present his/her resident registration certificate or other identification card with public probative value and to verify his/her age, unless it appears that the other party is an adult on the external basis.

In addition, if the other party neglected to perform such duty of care and sold alcoholic beverages, etc. to him/her without confirming the fact that he/she is a juvenile, the negligence of the crime of violation of the Juvenile Protection Act due to the violation of the above legal provisions shall be recognized.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2003Do8039 Decided April 23, 2004, etc.). The evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the following circumstances acknowledged thereby, i.e., the following circumstances, i., (e., (i) the Firir E entered the head of the Dong-gu’s head of the Dong-gu’s head of the Dong-gu’s head of the Dong-gu’s head of the Dong-gu’s head of the Dong-gu’s head of the Dong-gu’s head of the Dong-gu’s head of the Dong-gu and 23:00 on May 3, 2013; (ii) the Defendant made an oral inquiry to determine whether the Defendant was a juvenile before providing alcohol; and (iii) the Defendant and E made an oral statement by the investigative agency that confirmed the Defendant’s age only without verifying the identification card; and (iii) around April 2013, the Defendant stated the identification card as E in the 1