The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant believed that the Defendant’s misunderstanding of the fact requires the Defendant to present a false identification card, which is a juvenile, presented a forged identification card stored in a mobile phone, and the Defendant believed this. However, there is no intention to commit a violation of the Juvenile Protection Act.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (the amount of KRW 300,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The lower court acknowledged the assertion of mistake of facts based on the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court, namely, the instant restaurant is a place where alcoholic beverages are sold, so it is necessary to verify whether the customer who ordered alcoholic beverages is a juvenile more thoroughly, and D and its conduct did not take appropriate measures to confirm age at the time of the instant case, such as verification of identification card.

Furthermore, according to the Defendant’s assertion, the Defendant requested the presentation of identification cards to D and their behaviors at the time of the instant case, and the Defendant appears to have been aware that D and their behaviors were sufficient for juveniles. Nevertheless, the Defendant merely confirmed only the resident registration certificates stored in the mobile phone and the pictures stored in the mobile phone, but did not take any additional measures to confirm accurate age, such as the oral address and resident registration number verification.

Comprehensively taking account of the fact that D and its behaviors are likely to be juveniles, the Defendant sold alcoholic beverages to D and their behaviors without taking appropriate measures to confirm age when the Defendant was a juvenile.

It is reasonable to see that the defendant is not guilty of violating the Juvenile Protection Act.

B. In full view of the grounds for sentencing indicated in the instant argument and the record, the lower court’s sentencing against the Defendant is the Defendant.