The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal stated in the request for a formal trial as if he/she had verified his/her identification card, which is different from the F and G’s statement that F, who is the defendant’s aware, inspected his/her identification card.

In addition, the statements of F and G are inconsistent with each other as to whether some of female customers had already entered when G was entered, and whether G said member told F to conduct an identification card inspection, and whether F confirmed the identity card.

In full view of these circumstances and the relationship between F and G, the statements of the Defendant, F and G are not reliable.

On the other hand, the witness statement P, Q and E is highly reliable in light of the fact that their statements correspond alternatively to each other, and their profits that they gain in connection with the instant case or they did not have any original relationship with the Defendant.

In addition to other evidence, one of the juveniles presented N's identification card, an adult, even if so,

Even if the defendant did not confirm the age of all juveniles, it can be known that the defendant did not confirm the age of all juveniles, and the defendant could have known the fact that E, etc. was a juvenile.

I would like to say.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts and acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged.

2. The prosecutor bears the burden of proving the elements of the crime charged in a judgment in a criminal trial. As such, the prosecutor bears the burden of proving that the Defendant, who meets the subjective constituent element of the instant case, was aware that he/she sells alcoholic beverages to juveniles. Such proof ought to be proven to the extent that it causes a judge to have no reasonable doubt, and if there is no such proof, it ought to be determined with the benefit of the Defendant.

One of the juveniles P was present as a witness in the court of the court below, and 7 persons were present in the court of the court of the court, but he was able to enter a restaurant.