The defendant shall be innocent.

1. The summary of the facts charged is a person who operates a general restaurant with the trade name “E” in the Guro-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Section C heading D.

No one shall sell, lend, or distribute to juveniles drugs, etc. harmful to juveniles.

Nevertheless, at around 22:00 on July 3, 2015, the Defendant sold to the juvenile F(F, 15 years of age), G (n, 15 years of age), and H(n, 16 years of age) drugs harmful to the juvenile.

2. The judgment of the Defendant: (a) the initial adult behavior had been ordered to sell alcoholic beverages in accordance with the promise of eight customers; (b) he had been unaware of the minor's seat; and (c) the minor did not sell alcoholic beverages to the minor's day.

The argument is asserted.

The burden of proving the facts constituting a crime prosecuted in a criminal trial is the prosecutor, and the conviction must be based on evidence with probative value that leads a judge to feel true enough to have no reasonable doubt. Thus, if there is no evidence to establish such a degree of conviction, even if there is doubt as to the defendant's guilt, it shall be judged in the interests of the defendant (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2006Do1716, May 26, 2006; 2007Do163, Nov. 30, 207). Meanwhile, in order for a restaurant operator to constitute "act of selling alcoholic beverages to juveniles" as provided in the Juvenile Protection Act, the act of selling alcoholic beverages, such as liquors, to many people who were on the restaurant, was included in the first day during the restaurant and the operator of the restaurant and the youth should have been aware of it at the time of the last day. Thus, if the restaurant operator and the youth were to sit together.