The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Any meat seller who is identical with the defendant who has a summary of grounds for appeal may pack and sell meat without permission for meat packaging business;

Nevertheless, it is unreasonable that the court below found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case.

2. Determination

A. The lower court also asserted that the grounds for appeal are similar to the grounds for appeal, and the lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion on the grounds that the Defendant’s act constitutes a mere meat seller who sells meat in a certain container or a meat packaging business, on the grounds that the Defendant’s act constitutes a simple meat packaging business, based on the premise that the additional distribution stage should be taken into account after packaging the meat, the methods of cutting and packaging the meat, the size of business, etc., and the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence adopted and examined by the lower court: (a) the Defendant’s packaging of meat is premised not only on ordinary restaurants but also on supply to retailers, such as D, E, etc.; and (b) the Defendant’s act constitutes a meat packaging business; and (c) the size of business, etc.

B. Examining the above judgment of the court below in light of the records of this case, a thorough examination of the above judgment of the court below is justified, and the defendant's assertion is without merit.

The Defendant asserted that “products supplied by the Defendant in retail meat are supplied in the form of packaged meat in the livestock processing plant and then supplied at retail meat again, and the Defendant does not have any relation to the meat packaging business because the Defendant did not have any part in the packaging or packing.” However, according to the records of this case, the Defendant received or separately supplied the packaged meat other than the packaged meat which the Defendant processed and packaged.