2. Although the Defendants recognized all the facts charged in the instant case, there are favorable circumstances for the Defendants, such as that Defendants C, D, and F did not have any record of being punished for the same kind of crime or was punished by a fine.

However, it is reasonable to view that the crime of this case was committed by the Defendants to have imported low-quality domestically salt to the extent that they are used for the purpose of spreading in the teice, and then sold it by falsely marking the origin of salt, which is a food indispensable for our diet, by means of the prompt name “balking” method, which is the highest product, with the origin of a food, which is a food indispensable for our diet, and thus, not only the consumers who purchased it, but also the reputation of the salt in the new eancheoncheon salt, and thereby, it would have inflicted an injury on the reputation of the new eancheon salt. Accordingly, in light of the fact that the nature of the crime is very poor, there is a need to strictly punish the Defendants. In addition, the Defendants’ age, character, family relation, environment, occupation, details leading to the crime of this case, circumstances leading to the crime of this case, criminal records, etc., and thus, the above Defendants’ assertion that the above Defendants’ punishment is unreasonable or unreasonable is not consistent with the grounds of equity.

3. As such, the Defendants’ appeal is without merit, and all of the appeals are dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.