The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant

B Imprisonment with prison labor for one year, for six months, for Defendant C, and for four months, for Defendant A.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

Defendant B and C have a duty to report on freezing conversion because Defendant B and C did not have a duty to report on freezing conversion because Defendant B and C did not have a duty to report on freezing conversion because Defendant B and C did not have a duty to process and pack the raw chickens, which were not kept in a freezing, in freezing, for the reason of appeal against the violation of the Livestock Products Sanitary Control Act due to the failure to report the facts of the crime stated in B and C as stated in the judgment of the court below, and C did not themselves commit a crime.

As to the fraud of the facts of the crime 1-C in the holding of the court below, it was well known that the victims do not deliver the "K's own package" because the unit price of the product presented by the defendant B to the victims is lower than the price of the standardized product.

In addition, it is true that Defendant B did not request the victim N to use the crypian crypian crypian crypian crypian crypian crypian crypian cryp, but there is no error in the quality of the crypian cryp, and it is not required to indicate it even in the standards for labeling of livestock products (Korea Food and Drug Safety Notice No. 2103-150).

Nevertheless, the lower court’s judgment that found the Defendants guilty of all of the facts charged that the Defendants, by deceiving the victims, obtained money equivalent to KRW 460,533,351, is unlawful.

Defendant

A's assertion of mistake of facts is a person who has completed the report of livestock transportation business and is engaged in the intermediate distribution business of livestock products lawfully. The judgment of the court below which found Defendant A guilty of this part of the facts charged that Defendant A engaged in the livestock product storage business without obtaining permission, even though he only stored the chickens for two to three days exceptionally in the process of receiving orders from the customer and delivering them.

The lower court sentenced the Defendants on the grounds of unfair sentencing.