All appeals filed by the prosecutor against the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles)

A. In light of the legislative purport, etc. of the Food Sanitation Act, which aims to contribute to the improvement of national health by preventing sanitary harm caused by food and promoting the qualitative improvement of food nutrition, with respect to the violation of the Food Sanitation Act due to the sale and storage of food due to the expiration of the distribution period, the sublimlim management made by using a health unit, sulfur map, etc. as raw materials, the distribution period of which expires, also constitutes “food for which the distribution period has expired” under Article 44(1)3 of the Food Sanitation Act.

B. As to the violation of the Food Sanitation Act due to the failure to prepare a ledger on raw material receipts and disbursements and the failure to keep such ledger, the Defendants, on the ground that Article 44(1) of the former Food Sanitation Act (amended by Act No. 11690, Mar. 23, 2013; amended by Act No. 14022, Feb. 3, 2016; hereinafter the same) which was the basis for the duty to prepare a ledger on raw material receipts and disbursements at the time of using such materials as yellow Island, was unconstitutional (the Constitutional Court Decision 2014Hun-Ga6, 2015Hun-Ga26, a consolidation) was unconstitutional on the ground that the Defendants violated the general principle on prohibition of delegation on November 24, 2016 (the Constitutional Court Decision 2014Hun-Ga6, 2015

Even if the crime of violating the Food Sanitation Act due to the failure to prepare a ledger on raw material receipts and disbursements constitutes a so-called continuous crime, it is reasonable to view that the crime of violating the Food Sanitation Act due to the failure to prepare a ledger on raw material receipts and disbursements, etc., unless the ledger on raw material receipts and disbursements was prepared and kept after the enforcement of the current Food Sanitation Act.

(c)

Defendant

As to the violation of both punishment provisions against E corporation, since each act of Defendant A, B, C, and D constitutes a violation of the Food Sanitation Act, it is reasonable to view that Defendant E corporation also constitutes a violation of the Food Sanitation Act.

2. Determination

A. We examine the determination as to the violation of the Food Sanitation Act due to the sale and storage of foods for the expiration of the distribution period. The court below puts the notice from the 7th page 2 to 8th page 6 of the judgment.