2. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and examined, the lower court determined that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone was insufficient to acknowledge the fact that the Defendants kept air conditioners for sale in the past, and that there was no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise.

C (hereinafter referred to as “C”) mainly supplied the frozen residues to Defendant Company B (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant Company”). By mistake, the Defendant Company supplied the residues of this case, which is a food cooling plant, to the Defendant Company. The Defendant Company was in custody in the freezing room without being aware of this fact.

3. The above determination by the court below is justified in light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below and the court below.

① Defendant A consistently informed that the remaining body of the instant case supplied by C from an investigative agency to the depth of the case is freezing food.

F. F.C’s attendance at the lower court as a witness and supply the freezing to the Defendant Company, and supply the niver turbs to the Defendant Company, as well as the F.C’s attendance at the lower court.

The statement was made (see, e.g., 41, 43 to 45 of the trial record). Each written confirmation written by F is also written to the same effect (see, e.g., 26, 27, 52 of the trial record). (2) Special Justice Police Officers E, at the time of regulating the Defendants at the lower court, regards the remaining food of the Defendant company as food storage in addition to the remaining food of the instant case.