1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The Defendant’s penalty surcharge of KRW 11,70,000 against the Plaintiff on July 17, 2018.

The reasoning of the judgment of this court citing the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows, except for the dismissal of the part on the part of 3-6 pages of the judgment of the court of first instance as follows, and thus, it is consistent with the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, it is accepted by Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of

[Attachment]

C. In a case where a person who operates a judgment restaurant was only an adult at the time of giving alcohol to the persons who entered the restaurant, and later drinks only, and later became a juvenile and became a joint member of the restaurant, unless there was a circumstance for the restaurant operator to anticipate that the juvenile was a joint member of the restaurant later, or there was an additional drinking while recognizing that the juvenile was a joint member of the restaurant, it cannot be deemed that the restaurant operator provided a "act of providing alcohol to the juvenile" under Article 44 (2) 4 of the Food Sanitation Act even if he was partially breath of remaining alcoholic beverages after the juvenile was a joint member of the restaurant.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2005Du2223 Decided May 27, 2005, etc.). Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of Gap evidence Nos. 4 through 7, Eul evidence Nos. 2 and 5, Eul evidence Nos. 2 and E, and testimony and arguments by witnesses of the first instance trial, Eul, an employee of the plaintiff, provided two adult women at the instant restaurant around February 12, 2018 and provided one soldier’s house and one soldier’s house to two adult women at the instant restaurant. After that, D, a juvenile, did not verify the identification card of the above juvenile, D did not confirm the identification card, and D prepared and submitted a written statement to the investigation agency on the date of the crackdown on the instant offense, that “I d d d d d f d f d f d f d f d f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f

However, there was a circumstance in which the plaintiff or E had been predicted that D, a juvenile, would be a joint man before he/she provides an alcoholic beverage to two adult women.

or after D's combination, additional alcoholic beverage is granted when recognizing it.