1. Examining the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the first instance court, which maintained the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court was justifiable to have determined that all of the facts charged in this case was guilty on the grounds stated in its reasoning. In so doing, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, by misapprehending the principle of presumption of innocence, by misapprehending the legal doctrine on fraud, the violation of the Act on Origin

2. The crime of violating Article 6(1)3 of the Act on Origin Labeling of Agricultural and Fishery Products and the crime of fraud are separate crimes, each of which differs from each other, and it is reasonable to view both crimes as a substantive concurrent relationship, not an ordinary concurrent relationship, because the form of each act and the protected legal interest are different.

The judgment of the court below to the same purport is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the number of crimes.

3. According to Article 383 subparag. 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing is allowed only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment or imprisonment without prison labor for not less than ten years has been imposed. As such, in this case where a more minor sentence has been imposed on the defendant, the allegation that the amount of punishment

4. The remaining grounds of appeal are not legitimate grounds of appeal that the defendant either did not pay them as grounds of appeal or withdrawn after asserting them as grounds of appeal.

5. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.