All appeals by the Defendants and the Prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A and B1 of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles were aware that active carbon was not edible at the time of the instant crime, but that the use of active carbon for medicinal use was not a violation of the Food Sanitation Act. In addition, Defendant A did not recognize that the sale of M products did not take private profit, and that M was a crime of violation of the Act on Special Measures for the Control of Public Health Crimes. Defendant A did not establish each of the above crimes pursuant to Article 16 of the Criminal Act, since misunderstanding that his act was not committed, and there was a justifiable reason for misunderstanding that his act did not constitute a crime of violation of the Food Sanitation Act. As long as Defendant A’s crime of violation of the Food Sanitation Act is not established, Defendant A’s crime of aiding and abetting the violation of the Food Sanitation Act is not established. In other words, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine that found Defendant A guilty.

B. Defendant C’s imprisonment (two years of imprisonment, three years of suspended execution, and fine of 20 million won) is too unreasonable.

C. The Prosecutor’s sentence imposed by the lower court to Defendant A and C is too uncomfortable.

2. Determination

A. As to Defendant A and B’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of the legal principles, Article 16 of the Criminal Act provides that “an act of misunderstanding that one’s act constitutes a crime by law shall not be punishable only when there is a reasonable ground for misunderstanding.” It generally recognizes that it does not constitute a crime but, in its special case, it does not constitute a crime that is permitted by law, if there is a justifiable reason for misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles.