The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendants shall be punished by a fine of KRW 5,000,000.

The above fine is imposed against the Defendants.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant B (1) misunderstanding of facts) since Defendant B had different knowledge of the fact that Defendant A supplied the former amount on which the date of manufacture was falsely recorded to the J, Defendant B did not conspired with Defendant A to commit such crime. The prosecutor of the misapprehension of the legal principle reveals that Defendant B conspiredd with Defendant A to commit a false accusation on the date of manufacture of the former amount, thereby leading to the public prosecutor of the misapprehension of the legal principle. As such, each of the above statements cannot be recognized as credibility in violation of due process.

Since the prosecutor seizes goods related to the criminal facts, such as false indication of the date of manufacture irrelevant to the criminal facts of the warrant, the above seizure is in violation of warrant requirement.

Therefore, the above seized articles are inadmissible as illegal evidence, and each statement made by K, M, and AB based on the above seizure is also inadmissible as it is unlawful.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty as to the crime stated in paragraph (1) of the judgment below based on the statements of K, M and AB and the above seized articles is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles.

B. Articles 1 and 2-1 of the lower judgment’s facts constituting the crime

A. (1) Although Defendant A falsely stated the manufacturing date of a partial disturbance or delivered it to J after the lapse of the distribution period, the number of times is much less than the attached table 1 and 2 of the judgment below, the crime No. 2 of the judgment below

A. 3) The column in paragraph 3, which Defendant A sold to a restaurant in Chuncheon, is not the column for the suspension of corrosion, but rather the column that the Defendant mixed with a white roman and a roman by shaking the eggs. This is the column before the former Livestock Products Sanitary Control Act (amended by Act No. 11690, Mar. 23, 2013; hereinafter “former Livestock Products Sanitary Control Act”).

(C) The facts constituting the crime of the lower judgment, Article 31(2)6 of the Act, which does not constitute “a person not in the normal form of disturbance.”

A. The distribution period set forth in paragraph 4 is set by Defendant A.