2. Although there are extenuating circumstances such as the defendant's absence of previous convictions and the defendant's failure to make a business report due to disputes between the owner of a building, etc., in order to promote national health, as long as the Food Sanitation Act imposes a certain obligation to report prior to running the business, the defendant must operate the business by selecting a place available for reporting prior to running the business, and it cannot be justified on the ground that the defendant was unable to make a business report due to a dispute with the owner of the building used as a place of business due to a dispute with the owner of the building. Furthermore, it is difficult for the supervisory office to properly grasp what kind of food is manufactured at any place of business, thereby making it difficult to control and supervise the food, and thereby, it is possible to distribute the food that causes serious harm to national health and sanitation. In full view of the defendant's age, character and behavior, environment, circumstances before and after committing the crime, etc., the defendant's assertion that the above defendant's judgment is too unreasonable, and thus, is not justified.

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