A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

On February 12, 2015, the Defendant kept 16.9kg of the Marocco Freeboard of Australia, the expiration date of which is until August 11, 2013, for freezing 15, the period of distribution of which is 15.1kg and 23.0kg of the Australian Free Trade Co., Ltd, the expiration date of which is no later than September 15, 2013, at the store of the livestock products located in Sungsung City Co., Ltd. (State), for freezing 138.9kg, Australia Free Trade Co., Ltd, the expiration date of which is no later than November 6, 2014, for freezing 19.9kg of the 14 November 14, 2014.

Accordingly, the Defendant stored livestock products with the expiration of the period indicated for sale.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. A certificate;

1. A photograph at the scene of detection [the defendant and his defense counsel knew that the distribution period of the livestock products as stated in the judgment of the defendant was expired but did not dispose of the livestock products, and did not have been stored for the purpose of sale. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this court, the defendant did not regularly check or separately manage the distribution period of the livestock products in freezing, that is, the defendant was stored with other livestock products, but the distribution period of the livestock products in this case was not indicated on the livestock products whose distribution period was expired, or that it was not deemed that they were stored separately only for the livestock products whose distribution period was expired, or that the livestock products were stored separately. The distribution period of the livestock products in the judgment was more than one year, and in particular, the distribution period of the livestock products in this case was more than one year, and in light of the fact that the defendant was not aware of the methods of disposal, it is recognized that the defendant stored the livestock products for the purpose of sale. Accordingly, the above argument is not accepted.]

1. Article 45 (1) of the relevant Act concerning facts constituting an offense and Article 45 (1) of the Sanitary Control of Livestock Products Act;