However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

From June 2006, the Defendant, a person operating a “C farm” in the Gu and America from June 2006 to June 2, 2006, who intends to operate slaughter business, shall obtain permission from the competent Mayor/Do governor for each workplace.

Nevertheless, the Defendant, without obtaining permission from the competent authority from January 2008 to March 2013, equipped with the slaughter facilities equipped with electric shockers, sprinkers, water pipes, water pipes, and water-supply facilities to the above C farm, and had employees D, E, etc. slaughter approximately 122 mari (average 2 ma per month), and sold them to the G cafeterias, G cafeterias, etc., including the F cafeterias, G cafeterias, etc.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Each police statement made to D and H;

1. A written statement of I;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on internal investigation reports;

1. Relevant Article of the relevant Act and Articles 45 (1) and 7 (1) of the Livestock Products Sanitary Control Act and the choice of punishment for a crime shall be applied in general, or the choice of imprisonment;

1. It is so decided as per Disposition under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act on the grounds that the suspended execution period exceeds the scope of Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (i.e., the maximum period for the instant crime and the number of salt slaughtered is considerably high, but the Defendant’s mistake is against the Defendant, there is no same force, and