The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. In light of the following circumstances, Defendant’s report on food transportation business should be deemed to be included in Defendant’s case. However, the lower court rendered a judgment of not guilty on Defendant’s erroneous determination that Defendant constitutes “the transport of food for sale at the business office of the relevant business operator” under the proviso of Article 21 subparag. 4 of the Enforcement Decree of the above Act. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts

(1) The delivery of active fish carried by the defendant is not a service worker for sale, but a substantial food transportation business.

(2) Where food sales business or food manufacturing and processing business is reported to be food sales business or food manufacturing and processing business because regulations concerning food storage facilities and manufacturing and processing facilities are only applicable to food storage facilities and do not regulate the requirements for food transportation equipment and methods of management, no standards for facilities, etc. necessary for food transportation business shall be managed and supervised.

(3) One place of business may fall under any one of the food transportation business, food sales business, and food manufacturing and processing business, not only overlap, and thus, it is necessary to ensure that all reports on food transportation business and food sale business be managed and supervised.

④ In light of the legislative process and legislative intent of the proviso of Article 21 subparag. 4 of the Enforcement Decree of the Food Sanitation Act, it is reasonable to interpret the proviso of Article 21 subparag. 4 of the Enforcement Decree of the Food Sanitation Act to be limited to “where a business operator transports products manufactured by him/her to sell them, and where the business operator inevitably requires transportation in the process of purchasing foods for sale at the relevant business

2. Based on the circumstances stated in its reasoning, the lower court determined that the Defendant transported active fish at the buyer’s request in the course of selling active fish is the proviso to Article 21 subparag. 4 of the Enforcement Decree of the Food Sanitation Act.