A. In light of the legal principles, it is reasonable to view that the defendant's act of misunderstanding the legal principles (public prosecutor) committed an imported meat packaging business by damaging the imported meat spacks, thereby spacking the spacks and removing its hairs, and then re-melting the spacks by mixing with domestic spacks, constitutes a business of manufacturing the packaged meat, i.e., a business of manufacturing the packaged meat. Thus,

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted this part of the facts charged is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the Sanitary Control of Livestock Products Act.

B. The defendant asserts that the sentencing unfair (the defendant and the prosecutor) is unfair because it is too unreasonable because of the punishment sentenced by the court below (the punishment of 8 months of imprisonment and 7 million won of fine). The prosecutor asserts that the above punishment is too unfeasible and unfair.

2. In light of the records, a thorough examination of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below regarding the prosecutor's assertion of misunderstanding the legal principles, the court below is justified in finding the defendant not guilty of violating the Sanitary Control Act due to the operation of meat packaging business among the charged facts of this case, and there is an error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as otherwise alleged by the prosecutor, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

subsection (b) of this section.

Therefore, the prosecutor's above assertion is without merit.

3. We examine both the Defendant and the Prosecutor’s assertion of unfair sentencing.

In light of the following factors: (a) there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the original judgment, such as the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, environment, background, method, size, frequency, period, and circumstances after the crime; and (b) the sentencing conditions specified in the present argument are appropriate, and the sentence imposed by the lower court is too heavy or too unreasonable.