1. According to the records on the grounds of Defendant B’s appeal, the Defendant appealed against the judgment of the first instance and asserted only unfair sentencing on the grounds of appeal.

In such a case, the argument that the lower court erred by mistake of facts or by misunderstanding of legal principles is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

In addition, the argument that the court below erred in the violation of the rules of law by misunderstanding the facts about the normal relation of sentencing is ultimately an unfair argument in sentencing.

According to Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, only in the case where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment with or without prison labor for more than ten years is imposed, an appeal is permitted for the wrongful grounds for sentencing. Thus, the argument that the Defendant’s punishment is too unreasonable is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

2. As to the grounds for appeal against the Defendant C by the prosecutor, the lower court upheld the first instance judgment that acquitted the Defendant of violation of the Act on the Support for the Management of Organic Food, Etc., by deeming that there is no proof of crime on the grounds stated in its reasoning, among the facts charged in the instant case against the Defendant C, the environment-friendly farming and fishing industry relating to the quantity distribution purchased from producers BK, BL,

The judgment below

In light of the records, the above judgment of the court below is just and acceptable. Contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors of law by exceeding the bounds of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, thereby finding the facts erroneous.

Meanwhile, the prosecutor appealed against Defendant C in the entirety of the judgment below, but the guilty part did not state the grounds for appeal, nor did it state the grounds for appeal.

3. As to the grounds for appeal against Defendant E by the prosecutor, the lower court, on the grounds stated in its reasoning, raises objection against Defendant E.