A. The lower court did not render a judgment on the Defendant’s assertion of innocence and the grounds therefor.

B. Article 2 [Attachment 1] of the former Enforcement Decree of the Toxic Chemicals Control Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 23967, Jul. 22, 2012; hereinafter the same shall apply) (amended by Presidential Decree No. 23967, Jul. 22, 2012)

(c)

In fact, the Defendant did not have sold poisonous substances as stated in the facts charged in the instant case, and even if the Defendant sold a single name “C”, it does not constitute poisonous substances under the former Toxic Chemicals Control Act (amended by Act No. 11260, Feb. 1, 2012; hereinafter the same shall apply) or is not subject to the former Toxic Chemicals Control Act, and the Defendant constitutes a person exempt from registration of poisonous substances business (the Defendant did not state specific reasons in the “fact misunderstanding” item as stated in the grounds for appeal, but did not state specific reasons in the “fact misunderstanding” item, it would have maintained the lower court’s assertion of mistake or misapprehension of legal doctrine)

A. Article 323(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act regarding the assertion of omission of judgment must clearly state the facts that a judgment would be a crime committed when a sentence is pronounced, the summary of evidence, and the application of the law.

Paragraph (2) provides that "if there is a statement of the reason why the establishment of a crime is excluded by law, or of the fact that is the reason why the punishment is aggravated, or that is the reason why the reduction or exemption is justified, the judgment thereon must be clearly stated.

“.......”

The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in the instant case and stated the facts charged, summary of evidence, and application of the Act in the written judgment without being omitted, and the “assumptives and grounds for the Defendant’s assertion” under Article 323(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act does not constitute “the grounds for rejecting the formation of a crime by law, or for the addition, reduction, or exemption of punishment,” and thus, the lower court need not separately specify the same.

Therefore, the defendant's rejection of judgment is justified.