The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As to the part of the facts charged in the case of erroneous determination of facts, the Defendant: (a) the Defendant, while packaging and selling kings to customers; (b) provided cooking equipment, such as smells, salt, and gas sirens, on behalf of customers who want to take food at the site; and (c) the customers have come to drink by using a direct tool; (b) even if the Defendant’s act constitutes general restaurant business, it does not constitute cooking and selling food, it is not an act of cooking and selling food, but a report is unnecessary pursuant to Article 25(2)6 of the Enforcement Decree of the Food Sanitation Act, and thus, the lower court convicted the Defendant of this part of the facts charged

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant (two months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, and one hundred and sixty hours of community service) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

A. According to Article 21 subparagraph 8 (b) of the Enforcement Decree of the Food Sanitation Act based on delegation of Article 36 (2) of the first argument, an ordinary restaurant business which is one of the food service businesses refers to the business of cooking and selling food and drinking incidental to the food. Here, the business of cooking and selling the food refers to the business of cooking and selling the food in light of the facility standards of the food service business prescribed in the Enforcement Rule of the Food Sanitation Act. However, the issue of whether an act constitutes "coling and selling the food" of the food is likely to cause harm to the food or affect the public health due to the quality of the food nutrition, by comprehensively taking into account various circumstances such as the type and nature of the food handled, the state of the food handled, the method of handling, and the main contents of the business.