The part of the defendant D against the defendant is reversed.

Defendant

D. A person shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

, however, the defendant.

A. 1) The lower court convicted the Defendants of all of the facts charged in the instant case, namely, food sales and false exaggerated advertisements.

2) As to the lower judgment, the Defendants filed an appeal on the grounds of the misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal doctrine and the misunderstanding of sentencing, and the Prosecutor filed an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing, and the judgment of the lower court was reversed, and the judgment of the lower court was reversed, and the Defendants were acquitted on the sales of food for the sake of the Defendants among the facts charged in

3) A prosecutor only filed an appeal against the judgment of the court of first instance prior to remand. The Supreme Court rendered that “The part of innocence against Defendant D, among the part of innocence, to be sold food for the sake of around November 2, 2010 to January 31, 201, to Defendant A, B, and agricultural corporations E, is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to food for the sake of Article 4 subparag. 4 of the Food Sanitation Act, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.” The part of the judgment prior to the remand which rendered a single sentence on the ground that there are concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, as well as each of the above part, was reversed, and remanded in full, and the Prosecutor dismissed the prosecutor’s appeal against the Defendant of the judgment prior to the remand which rendered a single sentence on the ground that the aforementioned concurrent crimes are concurrent crimes under Article 37 of the Criminal Act. The part of innocence against Defendant D was dismissed (Article 3 of the facts charged) around March 7, 2013.

B. According to the scope of the deliberation by the party, among the facts charged of the instant case, the sales of food to Defendant D around March 7, 2013 was separated and finalized as the prosecutor dismissed the final appeal against the judgment of innocence before remanding the case, and thus, it is not included in the subject of the judgment by the court.

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendants 1) and 1-B. As to the sale of food for the purpose of resistance 1-B by mistake or misunderstanding the facts of the lower judgment, U.S. products as indicated in the lower judgment (hereinafter “instant products”) are stipulated by Article 4 subparag. 4 of the Food Sanitation Act.