The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant confirmed that he is not a juvenile, after verifying three identification cards among six daily activities of E, and confirmed that he is not a juvenile. The Defendant did not recognize that he was a juvenile since he requested three juvenile, including E, as stated in the facts charged in the instant case, but did not have identification cards and did not raise identification cards.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (the fine of KRW 500,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Article 26(1) of the Juvenile Protection Act provides that “No person shall sell, lend, or distribute to juveniles drugs harmful to juveniles, etc.” and Article 20(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provides that “a person who intends to sell, lend, or distribute drugs harmful to juveniles, etc. harmful to juveniles pursuant to the provisions of Article 26(1) of the Act shall verify the other party’s age.” Thus, a person who sells, sells, or distributes, drugs harmful to juveniles, etc. harmful to juveniles is highly liable for the protection of juveniles.

Therefore, barring any circumstances that make it difficult to doubt the other party as a juvenile from an objective point of view, such as where the other party appears to be objectively, a seller of alcoholic beverages has the duty of care to request a person of age group who is likely to be a juvenile to produce resident registration certificate or any other evidence having public probative value of age to verify his/her age. In cases where the other party neglected to perform such duty of care and sold alcoholic beverages to him/her without confirming the fact that he/she is a juvenile, the other party has dolusent intent in violation of the Juvenile Protection Act due to a violation of the aforementioned legal provisions (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Do8039, Apr. 23, 2004). Furthermore, a person who sells alcoholic beverages