The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant shall be innocent.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts) revealed that at the time of the appeal, the defendant clearly confirmed the identification card of five persons, including E (the 1998 young children, hereinafter referred to as the "juvenile of this case"), including E, etc., but it was only the sales of the lawsuit by deeming that the juvenile of this case was not a juvenile due to the presentation of a forged identification card (the 1996 identification card). Thus, there was no criminal intent in violation of the Juvenile Protection Act

The judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts.

2. Judgment on the grounds for appeal

A. The lower court determined as follows: (a) based on the evidence duly admitted and investigated, found that the facts charged in the instant case and the Defendant’s criminal intent as to such facts can be recognized.

Based on the judgment, the defendant was convicted.

B. However, in light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below, the defendant was proved to the extent that the other party was aware that he was a juvenile at the time of the act of this case, but the other party was selling the liquor, which is a drug harmful to juveniles, beyond a reasonable doubt.

Since it is difficult to see it, the defendant's assertion of mistake is with merit.

(1) From the time when the Defendant violated the Juvenile Protection Act at the place of sales of the instant tenant, the Defendant confirmed that he was an adult through an identification card inspection for the instant juvenile and sold the relevant tenant.

The statements are consistently made.

D. On the contrary, the instant juveniles stated that the Defendant did not have any record of the examination of identification card at the time, and that there was no forged identification card that the Defendant confirmed, but, in light of the following facts, it is difficult to readily conclude that the Defendant’s assertion was false on the sole basis of the above circumstances.

(1) At the time, the accused is in violation of the Juvenile Protection Act (Seoul Southern District Court).