2. It is recognized that the Defendant led to the confession of all of the instant crimes and reflects his mistake, and that some of the amount was donated to a welfare organization as it is impossible to specify the victim, thereby trying to partly return criminal proceeds.

However, even though the defendant had been sentenced to a fine several times for the same kind of crime, the act of selling agricultural products as if they were domestically produced is an act that disturbs the distribution order of food and damages the consumer's trust. It is necessary to punish the defendant strictly. Considering the fact that the quantity of goods sold at the time of false labeling or disguised sale is above the market price of KRW 300 million, the crime is significant in light of the fact that the defendant plans to commit concurrent crimes at three stores operated by himself/herself, plans to commit concurrent crimes, and allows employees of each store to participate in the crime, and obstructs investigation by using false statements or attempting to take responsibility to the employees in the process of detection of the crime, and taking into account various sentencing conditions shown in the arguments of this case such as the defendant's age, sexual behavior, environment, the circumstance and consequence of the crime of this case, and the circumstances after the crime, there is no reason for the defendant's assertion that the punishment of the court below is too unfair.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the defendant's appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.