2. There is no special change in circumstances in the trial about sentencing, and the lower court already determined the sentence by fully taking into account all circumstances that the Defendant asserts on the grounds of appeal.

Even as alleged by the Defendant, there is no significant difference in the price of the white or leviral levis used by the Defendant depending on the country of origin, or there is a little difference in the volume of the levis actually made by using the levir.

Even if it is not only a simple difference in the method of use, but also the country of origin may vary depending on the health care unit consumer with respect to the purpose of punishing the crime of this case. The purpose of prohibiting false labeling of the country of origin of agricultural and fishery products is to substantially protect the consumer's choice by guaranteeing the consumer's right to know about the food he takes, and there is no particular change in the fact that the right of choice of the consumer was infringed by the crime of this case.

In full view of the sentencing grounds cited by the lower court and other factors of sentencing indicated in the records of this case, including the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, motive, means and consequence of the commission of the crime, the circumstances after the commission of the crime, etc., the lower court’s punishment was so excessive that it exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

It does not seem that it does not appear.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is not accepted.

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.