The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.

However, the above punishment for a period of two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The court below acquitted the defendant of this part of the facts charged, although the misunderstanding of the legal principles (not guilty part) copied the quality inspection pass certificate issued normally by using the reproduction machine, and attached it while selling the reproduction pass certificate, it constitutes a case of false quality labeling as prescribed by the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court against the Defendant (in 10 months of imprisonment, 2 years of suspended execution, 2 years of forfeiture) is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Judgment on the misapprehension of legal principles

(a) In cases where a seller of the facts charged intends to distribute or sell the crym which is a special management forest product, the seller shall undergo a quality inspection in advance by a specialized institution, and shall not distribute or sell the crym without indicating the quality thereof, or make a false quality labelling.

(1) On October 2014, Defendant B made a false quality indication in forest products by attaching and distributing a forged certificate of passing the quality labelling (A) of special forest products to about 50 consumers, who requested the purchase of 30 ppuri via the Internet, etc., as stated in Section 2-B(1) of the facts constituting the judgment of the court below, at the beginning of the first instance, to approximately 50 consumers who requested the purchase of 70 ppuri via the Internet, etc.

(2) On November 2014, Defendant B requested approximately 70 consumers to purchase clocks via the Internet, etc., as stated in Section 2-B-2(2) of the facts constituting the crime of the lower judgment in the first instance judgment, Defendant B entered 1,00 ppuri (the facts charged are stated as 100 ppuri, but this is deemed as a clerical error, and thus correction is made.

With respect to evidence records 384, 385 pages), false quality labelling was made in the special management forest products by attaching and selling forged certificates of passing the quality labelling (E) of the special management forest products.

B. The lower court determined as follows: Article 18-6(3) of the Forestry and Mountain Villages Development Promotion Act and Article 17-8(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Forestry and Mountain Villages Development Promotion Act.