The defendant shall be innocent.

1. At the time of knowing the summary of the facts charged, the Defendant, running “E” (hereinafter referred to as the “E”) at the Manan-gu, Manan-gu, Manan-gu, and the second floor of the facts charged, did not confirm the age of “E” at around 00:45 September 11, 2016, and allowed the Defendant to enter a business establishment that prohibits juveniles from entering, without verifying the age of “E” (n, 17 years of age).

2. In full view of the following circumstances known from the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this Court, the Defendant did not verify the F’s age.

It is difficult to readily conclude, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

(a) was, at the time, F;

G and H have been entered into the main point of this case by presenting other person's identification card, and F also has been showing other person's identification card in the past and entered the main point.

B. F was found to have not inspected his identification card at the main point of this case.

The testimony was made in this court and made by the investigative agency, but it is difficult to believe in light of the following circumstances.

1) In relation to identification cards, F was only holding by police identification cards at the time, and did not have any other person’s identification cards.

However, the prosecution did not have any other person's identification card as well as his/her own identification card at the time.

The statements were reversed.

2) In particular, F had first been on the main points of this case

G After the call of this case, F presented another person's identification card in the past and predicted an identification card inspection on the grounds that there was an entry and control of another person's main points, so it is difficult for F to believe that F has been on the main points of this case without any comparison.

3) In relation to at the time, whether there was an identification card of F between G, H and F, and ① There was an investigation agency other than G and F with respect to whether H had an identification card inspection of F

It was discussed that

However, in this court, F did not have an identification card inspection for himself.