The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of the facts charged and the judgment of the court below

A. In relation to the name, manufacturing method, ingredients, nutrition, raw materials, use and quality of livestock products, packaging of livestock products, and processed livestock products traceability, no person who violates the Livestock Products Sanitary Control Act shall make an indication or advertisement different from the facts in relation to the date of manufacture, distribution, the expiration date, the date of spawning, and other date on the manufacturing or distribution of livestock products. On January 13, 2015, the Defendant changed the date of production to a new package and changed the date of production into a new package, and in the same manner, he/she made a false indication from January 13, 2015 to May 15, 203, 2017, any person who manufactures and distributes processed livestock products from 203 times to 203 times, shall indicate the name, manufacturing method, quality, food labelling, food traceability and other date on the date of production or distribution to 201.4.

B. The lower court determined that all of the facts charged of this case was guilty on the grounds as indicated in its reasoning.

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles 1) Article 32(1) of the Livestock Products Sanitary Control Act (amended by Act No. 15487, Mar. 13, 2018; hereinafter “former Livestock Products Sanitary Control Act”) regarding violations of the Livestock Products Sanitary Control Act

the date of manufacture is not listed as an item prohibiting false labelling.

However, the Enforcement Rule, which is subordinate to the above Act, prohibits false labelling of “manufacturing date” and “distribution period”.