A. The text of this case, misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles, which points out the issue or publication of evaluation, and points out the defendant's non-compliance with the defendant's question, is nothing more than broom description, and even if that content, the approval of manufacturing method for the so-called so-called so-called "so-called," is based on the water quality testing report for reference, not the water quality testing report for institution submission, and considering the corrected interview by the Ministry of Environment and Ministry of Government Legislation, it is not a false statement of facts, and it is for the public interest and there

Nevertheless, the court below found all of the charges of this case guilty, and the court below erred by misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles which affected the conclusion of judgment.

(2) The grounds for appeal are examined only to the extent it supplements the grounds for appeal, and the prosecution against only the Defendant is unlawful due to abuse of public prosecution rights, since the assertion that the Defendant’s indictment is unlawful due to abuse of public prosecution rights cannot be viewed as a legitimate ground for appeal due to the subsequent argument filed after the deadline for submitting the grounds for appeal, and it cannot be deemed that the prosecutor arbitrarily abused the public prosecution rights even based on the record.

The punishment sentenced by the court below of unfair sentencing (ten months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the following facts can be acknowledged in full view of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the original court and the trial court. A) On January 12, 2006, the twosan Co., Ltd., attached the water quality inspection report to the Korea Food and Drug Administration, and attached the results of the electrical decomposition process, do not exceed the owner of the trademark called “as in food.”