The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal: ① the Defendant’s act of delivering frozen fishery products falls under the actual food transportation business, not the vehicle for service following the sale; ② the food sale business and the food manufacturing and processing business regulations regulate food storage facilities and manufacturing facilities, but do not regulate the requirements for food transportation equipment and methods of management and supervision; ③ one place of business falls under any one of the food transportation business, food sale business, and food manufacturing and processing business; ③ one place of business is not necessarily falling under any one of the food transportation business, food sale business, and food manufacturing and processing business; ④ the legislative process, legislative intent, etc. of the proviso of Article 21 subparag. 4 of the Enforcement Decree of the Food Sanitation Act should be considered to be considered to be limited to the Defendant’s case where it is inevitably accompanied by the Defendant’s report.

Nevertheless, the court below found the defendant not guilty on the ground that the defendant's act of transporting food for sale at a business operator's place of business under the proviso of Article 21 (4) of the Enforcement Decree of the above Act constitutes "the case where the defendant transports food for sale at the business operator's place of business."

2. Determination

A. Based on the circumstances stated in its reasoning, the lower court: (a) held that the Defendant, while selling freezing fishery products, transported freezing fishery products at the buyer’s request.