All appeals filed by the prosecutor against the Defendants are dismissed.

1. The gist of the grounds of appeal is as follows: ① The Defendants indicated the “U” on the red ginseng products made of ginseng produced in Korea other than strengthened ginseng; ② in light of the advertising phrase that the strengthening of the Internet shopping mall established and operated by Defendant D cooperatives is strong as a ginseng cultivation site; ② as to the indication of “U”, it is sufficient to mislead the Defendants into being manufactured into a ginseng cultivated in the strengthening of the product; ② as to the indication of “AE”, the representative of the enterprise supplied with and selling the ginseng from Defendant D cooperatives, the ordinary consumers stated that it would be misunderstood that the products were manufactured with strengthened ginseng; ③ its strengthening is the product sold by the authorized seller of DF; ③ its reinforcement is the red ginseng products manufactured with strengthened ginseng cultivation; and there is no choice but to believe that it is the red ginseng products manufactured with strengthened red ginseng, and thus, the lower court determined that the Defendants were not guilty of the origin of each of the instant products by misapprehending the legal principles on the negligence of the Defendants in terms of empirical rule, and thus, did not have any mistake or omission in the origin of each of the instant products.

2. Progress of the instant case

A. A. The prosecutor’s prosecutor’s indictment details revealed that the Defendants could not make “U” only with raw ginseng harvested from the Incheon Strengthening Group. The Defendants mixed not less than 50% raw ginseng harvested from the Republic of Korea and other regions, and the Defendants decided to manufacture and sell “U” products as if they were used with ginseng harvested from the Incheon Strengthening Group. Defendant C from January 201 to November 201, 2013.