Whether the act of manufacturing Dotetetetetetetetetetetetetetetetetetetetetetetetetetetetetetetetetetetetetetetetetetetetetetetetetetetetetetetetetetetetetetetetetetetetetetetetetetetetetetee

If the method of manufacturing the dice of the Defendants lawfully permitted by the authorities concerned was 100 per cent of 100 per cent of roke, and then he was filed, flailed, dried, dried, dried, dried, dried, dried, packed, or packed by putting the dice into two-lanes after heating, dried, dried, and then being dried, refined, injected, or packed, it does not violate Article 7 of the Food Sanitation Act and Article 7 of the Public Health and Social Welfare Act, even if the Defendants manufactured the dice of the remaining dice, which had already been milked, dried, dried, and dried by another manufacturer, from the intermediate merchants, and then dried it again by mixing it at a rate of 6:4 of 10 per cent, it does not violate Article 7 of the Food Sanitation Act and the standards for manufacturing the dice of the Health and Social Affairs on the basis thereof.

Article 2 of the former Act on Special Measures for the Control of Public Health Crimes (Amended by Act No. 4293, Dec. 31, 1990); Article 7 of the Food Sanitation Act

Defendant 1 and one other

Defendants

Seoul District Court (89 High Court Decision 259)

Each judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendants are not guilty.

The gist of the defendants' grounds for appeal is that the defendants' act of manufacturing work oil (limited to manufacturing method in front and rear in the case) is not in violation of the manufacturing standards under the Food Sanitation Act, and the court below's decision that the defendants' act of manufacturing work oil constitutes a violation of the above Act, which affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding of facts as it did not affect the conclusion of the judgment, although the defendants' act of manufacturing 2 did not constitute a violation of the above Act, since 20 years old work work work work wor wor wor wor wor wor wor wor wor wor wor wor wor wor wor wor wor wor wor wor wor wor wor wor wor wor wor wor wor wor wor wor wor wor wor wor 2.

Therefore, in full view of the Defendants’ respective statements from the prosecution to the trial court and the written statements from Nonindicted 1, 2, 3, and 4 in each written statement from the prosecutor, it can be recognized that the Defendants, among the original facts, sold in full the sum of 21,00 won to 6:4% of the retail price in the business partners, etc. in Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Cheongyang-dong, Seoul Metropolitan Government Cheongyang-do, Nowon-do, 221 from June 6, 198 to October 198, 198.

Furthermore, the court below held that the above manufacturing method of the above 1st son was in violation of the manufacturing criteria of the above 1st son under Article 7 of the Food Sanitation Act, and that the above 1st son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son'.

The following facts are examined as to whether the Defendants were able to carry out the above legal specifications, such as 103 to 118, and the 195 ambrates' statements made by the Ministry of Health and Welfare (except for the parts that are not believed in the lower court). According to the records of Non-Indicted 5's statements made in the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Health and Environment Research Institute's report on the inspection of foods and the records compiled, the lower court's findings on the 89 ambrates' statements made by the Defendants on February 13, 1989 are inappropriate for the Defendants to carry out the 7 gambs' ambs' ambs' ambs' ambs' ambs' ambs' ambs' ambs' ambs' ambs' ambs' ambs' ambs' ambs' ambs' ambs' ambs' ambs.

If so, the court below found the defendants guilty on the premise that the defendants violated the manufacturing standards under Article 7 of the Food Sanitation Act or the defendants' products do not conform to the component specifications under the above Article of the above Act in the manufacturing of the title of this case, and found the facts guilty of the facts in the judgment, or erred by misapprehending the rules of evidence or by misapprehending the legal principles under the above Article, thereby affecting the judgment. Accordingly, the defendant's appeal

Therefore, without examining the remaining grounds for appeal, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the arguments are again ruled as follows.

The summary of the facts charged of this case is as follows: the Defendants conspired to sell 10 kilograms of 20 kilograms of 20 kilograms of 10 kilograms of 20 kilograms of 20 kilograms of YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYEEEEEEEYYYYY.

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.

Judges Jeon Soo-dae (Presiding Judge)