A. Each sentence (Defendant A: Imprisonment with prison labor for a year and six months, confiscation, Defendant B: imprisonment for a period of eight months, two years of probation, and 200 hours of community service) declared by the lower court is too unreasonable.

B. The above punishment, which the court below decided against the Defendants, is too unhued and unfair.

2. The lower court rendered a sentence by taking into account the favorable circumstances and unfavorable circumstances for the Defendants, as seen above.

Although the Defendants agreed with 2 victims in the past when the overall quality of life was improved, the defendants paid a high price and even if they want to purchase a high quality and high-quality livestock product, there is a significant amount of responsibility for the crime of this case, the period of false sale, the amount of sale, and the amount of the victims, and the records of punishment four times as to the violation of the Act on the Labeling of Agricultural and Fishery Products and the violation of the Quality Control of Agricultural and Fishery Products Act, including the fact that the defendants A had been punished once as a fine for the violation of the Act on the Labeling of Agricultural and Fishery Products and the fact that the defendants B had been punished once a suspended sentence due to the violation of the Act on the Labeling of Agricultural and Fishery Products and the violation of the Act on the Labeling of Agricultural and Fishery Products, the sentence imposed by the court below on the defendants is deemed appropriate and too heavy or unjust.

Therefore, each of the defendants and the prosecutor's arguments is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the appeal filed by the Defendants and the prosecutor is dismissed pursuant to Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that all of the appeal filed by the Defendants and the prosecutor is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition (Article 32(1) and 6(3) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the following grounds: (i) the “Article 30 of the Criminal Act” was erroneously omitted in accordance with Article 25(1) of the Regulation on Criminal Procedure, since it is apparent that the “Article 30 of the Criminal Act” was erroneously omitted in the scope of “Article 32(1)” and “Article 6(3) of the same Act