The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1’s misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal principles, and Defendant 1’s violation of the Act on Origin Labeling of Agricultural and Fishery Products (hereinafter “the disguised sale of the country of origin”) was not possible for merchants as indicated in the facts charged to deem that they were to sell “Japansan” under the disguised disguised sale of the country of origin.

Even if the defendant thought so, there is no fact that there was a conspiracy for false sale with him.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the establishment of joint principals.

B) The lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged on the following grounds: (a) misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine.

① It cannot be deemed that the Defendant’s fung-gun or u Czen fluorculp fluor, detected by the freezing defribris, sold to merchants, may cause harm to the health of the human body due to germs widely spread in the human body speed or surrounding environment.

② The Defendant did not have contaminated with the aforementioned micro-organism at the time of selling it to the merchants by destroying the freezing of “foreign acid”, and only such contamination occurred in the process of selling it to the consumers by merchants.

(3) The Defendant was unaware of such pollution at the time of sale.

C) The lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged, or erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, even though the Defendant was exempted from permission to occupy and use the public waters as a retail store operator in active wholesale, as a matter of violation of the Act on the Management and Reclamation of Public Waters.

2) The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The prosecutor (unfair sentencing)’s sentence is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Judgment ex officio;

A. The prosecutor is equal to food poisoning among the facts charged against the violation of the Food Sanitation Act.