The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds of appeal (as to the acquittal portion in the original judgment) that the Defendant’s deletion of the distribution time limit in the warehouse “storage” is intended to sell the beverages through the alteration of distribution time limit marking, and thus constitutes “use for business” as provided by Article 10(2) of the Food Sanitation Act, and “no indication exists” as provided by the above provision includes “an indication meeting the standards.” However, the lower court acquitted the Defendant of this part of the facts charged by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination:

(a) No food, etc. whose standards for indicating the outlines of the facts charged are determined shall be sold, imported, displayed or transported for sale, or used for business, unless such standards are indicated;

Nevertheless, around May 2012, the Defendant deleted “E by October 23, 2012,” the distribution period originally indicated in “E,” from the Chinese employee H, working in the Defendant Company, to arbitrarily extend the distribution period of “E” at the Gangnam-gu Seoul F Building A 1105, Dong D, and “E,” and stored “E” in its own warehouse for the purpose of selling 575 boxes without any indication meeting the said standards.

B. As to the above facts charged, the lower court determined that ① Article 10(2) of the Food Sanitation Act provides, “The food, etc. whose standards for labeling are determined shall not be sold, imported, displayed for sale, transported, or used for business, unless it is indicated that the food, etc. conforms to such standards.” Among them, the literal meaning of “proving” appears to mean the act of showing goods or things to the person who is to purchase the goods as “to display them to many people,” and the term “use in the business” is interpreted to be used for the business of the offender.