The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the Defendant confirmed F’s identification card through employees H. On August 23, 2014, E and G were aware that they were not juveniles and provided alcoholic beverages without re-inspection of identification card. Thus, the Defendant was intentional in violation of the Juvenile Protection Act.

shall not be deemed to exist.

B. The sentence of the lower court that is unfair in sentencing (the 500,000 won suspended sentence) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court as well as the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence and the evidence, the Defendant’s provision of alcoholic beverages without examining identification cards to juveniles E, F, and G is recognized, and thus, the Defendant was intentional in violation of the Juvenile Protection Act.

I would like to say.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's argument is without merit.

① On August 31, 2014, the Defendant inspected F’s identification card around 10:0:0 on August 31, 2014, the Defendant asserted to the effect that H’s identification card was returned to F again on the ground that H’s identification card was not problematic if the F’s face was lower than his/her age.

However, according to the CCTV of the business establishment, H does not seem to have a form of drying the identification card from F on August 31, 2014 or comparing the F face with the identification card. It appears to be a mobile phone, not an identification card, which was returned again by H, and the prosecutor of identification card must normally enter into the F 10 minutes of 2:00,00,000, while H 3 (H), which was first 2:5:40,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00,000,000,000,00,000,000,00,000,000,000,000,00,000.