The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. The interpretation of the penal law requires strict interpretation, and it is not permitted because it violates the principle of statutoryism to excessively expand or analogical interpretation of the meaning of the explicit penal law to the disadvantage of the defendant (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Do3053, Dec. 10, 2009). 2. As to the facts that the defendant conspired with G, etc. and issued the so-called reference test records, such as [Attachment 4, 5, and 6] of the first instance judgment in collusion with the defendant for the purpose of merely reference, in order to verify the quality of products manufactured by the business operator who uses food, etc. for the purpose of reference, (1) the inspection is requested to verify the quality of products. The reference test is not only to the items for which the inspection is not stipulated in the statute but also to the items for which the food inspection is conducted by the person entrusted with the sanitary inspection and the quality inspection of livestock products, but also to refer to the food inspection method that the person entrusted with the inspection is not a food inspection institution designated by the food inspection institution.