Defendant

All appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

Defendant

In fact, the Defendant was guilty on the part of the original conviction) by mismisunderstanding the facts of the original judgment, even though there was no fact that he had lent his business name to E or there was no concern that he might be mistaken for drugs.

The punishment sentenced by the court below of unfair sentencing (fines 10,000,000) is too unreasonable.

Comprehensively taking account of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor of mistake of facts (the part not guilty in the original trial), the court below erred by misapprehending the fact and finding the Defendant not guilty, even though the Defendant sufficiently recognized that the toxic substance was contained in the above raw material from the time when the Defendant purchased the manufacturing raw material of “J”.

The sentence imposed by the court below of unfair sentencing is too uneasible and unfair.

Judgment

According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below regarding the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts, this part of the facts charged can be sufficiently convicted.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of mistake is without merit.

No person in charge of this part of the judgment of the prosecutor's assertion of mistake of facts shall sell foods containing toxic and harmful substances, or manufacture such foods for the purpose of sale.

H is a person who manufactures and sells a product "J" while operating the Institute of Bankruptcy and Trade, and the defendant is a person who engages in food trade business.

The Defendant purchased raw materials containing the “Taman” component as a prescription drug from the Joseon K and sold it to H. H, and H made use of raw materials containing the “J” component in the “J” in the “B” registry. L, at the request of H, conspired with the said raw materials in the form of interchange and then to pack them.

The defendant from May 2008 to March 2009.