The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. According to the statements of E and F concerning the facts charged of this case, and the sales details of convenience stores operated by the defendant on the day of this case, etc., the facts charged of this case can be fully acknowledged, but the court below acquitted the facts charged of this case. The court below erred by misapprehending the facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is a person who operates “C Convenience Points”.

No one shall sell, lend, distribute, or provide to juveniles drugs harmful to juveniles without compensation, and any person who intends to sell, lend, or distribute drugs harmful to juveniles, etc. harmful to juveniles shall verify the age of the other party.

Nevertheless, at around October 26, 2014, the Defendant sold one disease by having 3 sclicks a week of “Good Faith”, which is a drug harmful to juveniles, within the “C convenience store” located in Ulsanbuk-gu, Ulsan-gu, U.S. and 03:00, without verifying the age to juveniles E (17 years of age).

B. The lower court found the Defendant not guilty of the facts charged of the instant case on the ground that there was a statement made by E and F to the court of the lower court and the investigative agency to the effect that the Defendant directly purchased alcoholic beverages from the date and place of the instant charges to the effect that the Defendant had sold the said alcoholic beverages to E or witness the site, in view of the following circumstances, each of the above evidence alone is insufficient to acknowledge the fact that the Defendant had sold alcoholic beverages, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

(1) Each statement of E and F is not only a big difference between the buyers, items to be purchased, and quantities, but also a statement of objection as well as a statement of objection made by the court and the investigative agency to the point of view that the credibility of the statement is doubtful.

Dor, in particular, E, in this Court, shall be referred to as “cars” in the case of beer.