The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal: ① The delivery of active foods carried out by the defendant constitutes not only the vehicle for service following the sale, but also the actual food transportation business; ② the food sale business and the food manufacturing and processing business regulations regulate food storage facilities and manufacturing facilities, but also do not regulate the requirements for food transportation equipment and methods of management and supervision; ③ one place of business is not limited to one of the food transportation business, food sale business, and food manufacturing and processing business, but also can be concurrently managed and supervised by the defendant; ④ In light of the legislative process, legislative purport, etc. of the proviso of Article 21 subparag. 4 of the Enforcement Decree of the Food Sanitation Act, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to "where it is inevitable for the defendant to purchase or sell food from the relevant place of business for the purpose of transportation, and thus, it should be interpreted that the defendant's business is limited to the defendant's business under the proviso of Article 21 subparag. 4 of the Enforcement Decree of the Food Sanitation Act."

2. Based on the circumstances stated in its reasoning, the lower court determined that the Defendant, while selling active fish and transporting active fish at the buyer’s request, falls under the category of the proviso of Article 21 subparag. 4 of the Enforcement Decree of the Food Sanitation Act.