All appeals filed by the prosecutor against the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence presented by the prosecutor's prosecutor's summary of the grounds for appeal, the defendant A may fully recognize his intention to indicate or advertise the quality, etc. of grain differently from the facts.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the Defendants is erroneous by misapprehending the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court, the fact that the Gyeonggi-do Special Judicial Police Team collected rice products processed from the rice processing plant around December 2, 2013 to February 2, 2014 and inspected rice genes in 2013, which were sold in the process at the rice processing plant, was found to have been mixed with the other plant, as stated in the instant facts charged, exceeding 20% of the permissible scope.

However, the circumstances as mentioned in the reasoning of the lower judgment and the following facts recognized by the record of the instant case, namely, the Gyeonggi-do Special Judicial Police Team’s search and seizure of B’s headquarters and integrated economic business establishment around March 6, 2014, and subsequently inspected rice genes by seizing 20 kggg of rice of the instant case, but there was no problem in the mixture ratio in the above rice, but in the above rice processing process, the processing process of all kinds of grains, including publicly notified kyl plant varieties, was processed by mechanical processing using machine. In order for Defendant A to manipulate the mixture ratio of rice of the instant publicly notified kyl plant varieties, Defendant A changed in the mechanical process of the rice processing complex.

In full view of the fact that there is no circumstance to deem that the above rice was aware of any mixture beyond the permissible scope of mixing, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone cannot be readily concluded that Defendant A had an intentional act of indicating or advertising the quality, etc. of grain differently from the fact, and otherwise recognized.