1. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the evidence duly admitted by the lower court as to the part of violation of the Food Sanitation Act, the lower court was justifiable to have found the Defendant guilty of violating the Food Sanitation Act among the facts charged in the instant case 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 exceeding the bounds of the principle

2. As to the violation of the Act on Origin Labeling of Agricultural and Fishery Products

A. Article 30 of the Criminal Act provides that two or more principals jointly commit a crime. In order to establish a joint principal offender, a joint principal offender is required to engage in a crime through functional control based on the joint principal intent as an objective requirement. Joint principal offender’s intent is insufficient to recognize another person’s crime and to accept it without restraint. Joint principal offender’s intent is one of the joint principal offenders to commit a specific crime with another’s intent and to shift his/her intent by using another person’s act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Do747, Mar. 28, 2003). Whether a joint principal offender is established should be comprehensively examined and comprehensively examined the status and role of each person, the contents of solicitation of his/her accomplice, etc., through prior records and circumstances, and the relationship between the above mutual use should be proven to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt, even if there is no such proof, the Defendant’s interest in the part of the offense, such as the Defendant’s restaurant, etc., even if there is no doubt against the Defendant.