Defendant

The appeal by the prosecutor is dismissed.

The summary of the grounds for appeal is as follows: (a) the Defendant, misunderstanding the facts of the Defendant, and misunderstanding the legal principles, in disguisedly selling the country of origin; (b) the Defendant did not sell the salted fish with a mark of origin mixed with other new salted fish;

① The result of the appraisal by the National Fisheries Institute is difficult to believe (the identity of appraisal samples is not confirmed, the number of samples is low, and all kinds and genetic information of new eggs that the appraisal institution resides in the Republic of Korea cannot be confirmed). ② The possibility that the Defendant could be mixed with imported products in the process of subdividing and storing fish in each company after selling the spokeed fish, or ③ the possibility that the fact that the Defendant was aware of the fact that the spokeed fish was purchased in the Republic of Korea through the initial spoke auction could not be ruled out.

In light of the misunderstanding of the fact of improper inspection of sentencing and the characteristics of the misunderstanding of the legal principles, it is not possible to appraise the whole of the sled fish sold by the Defendant, and the quantity of the sled fish sold by the Defendant by deceiving the origin is determined by reasonable

The facts charged of this case are calculated in favor of the defendant as much as possible on the basis of the amount of fished fish that the defendant imported, sold, stored, consumed voluntarily for the same period of time, and the distribution route of the new fished fish sold by the defendant, and the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of only some of the

The lower court’s determination on the assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles regarding sentencing is that the Defendant imported 585,174 km fish in 2015, and the distribution route of the salted 177,244 g is not confirmed if the Defendant excluded from inventory, sales volume, and arbitrarily used quantity, and on the premise that the Defendant indicated and sold the aforementioned quantity as domestic spoke fish, the Defendant specified the date of the Defendant’s crime and the amount of the crime under the premise that the Defendant sold the said quantity as spokeed spoke fish. From January 16, 2015 to December 8, 2015, the Defendant added the amount of the Defendant’s crime to I, J, L, L, N, cafeteria, andO totaled 157.