Defendants are not guilty.

A. In fact, misunderstanding of the legal principles or misunderstanding of the defendants imported the raw meat which is certified as being raised in Australia and cut, re-sealed, and sold it in conformity with the purpose of use. Thus, the phrases and logos indicated on the instant product sold by the defendants are not falsely labeled.

However, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. Each sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendants (a fine of 5 million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Before determining the grounds for appeal by the Defendants’ authority, the Prosecutor applied for changes in the indictment with respect to the Defendants, as stated in the summary of the facts charged below, and the subject of the judgment was changed by this court. Thus, the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained further in this respect.

However, even if there are such reasons for reversal in the judgment of the court below, the defendants' misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles is still subject to the judgment of the court.

B. 1) Determination on the assertion of misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles ought to be based on evidence with probative value, which causes a judge to have a reasonable doubt that the facts charged are true to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt. Therefore, if there is no such evidence, even if there is doubt as to the defendant's guilt, it is inevitable to determine it as the benefit of the defendant (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2005Do8675, Mar. 9, 2006; 2017Do10273, Sept. 21, 2017).

① The marks expressed by the Defendants are, in the English language, “HALAL LAMB” in the two heads’ shapes.