1. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of violating the Sanitary Control of Livestock Products Act due to the violation of processing standards among the instant charges against the Defendant.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err in its judgment by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the presumption of innocence and the burden of proof of facts charged, contrary to what is alleged in the

2. The allegation that the remaining Defendants infringed on the essential contents of the principle of balance of punishment or the principle of responsibility in the determination of sentencing, or that the lower court erred by not examining or omitting judgment on the grounds of sentencing constitutes an unfair argument in sentencing.

According to Article 383 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment or imprisonment without prison labor for not less than ten years is declared, an appeal can be filed on the grounds of unfair sentencing.

Therefore, in this case where the above defendants were sentenced to a more minor punishment, the argument that the above assertion or punishment is too unreasonable is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

3. The Defendants’ final appeal is dismissed in entirety as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.