1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasons for the reasoning of the court of first instance regarding this case are as follows: (a) the court of first instance added “B” as “D”; (b) the 7th class “2.6-dipropropye of the first instance judgment as “2.6-dipropye of the second class”; and (c) the 6th class “B” as “B No. 17” after “B”; and (d) the 3rd class “2” as “286”; and (e) the 3rd class “2” as “286”; and (e) the judgment as to the Plaintiff’s first class and the first instance judgment as to the Plaintiff’s argument is stated in the part of the first instance judgment, except where the judgment as to the Plaintiff’s argument is stated or added, it shall be cited as it is in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. As to the assertion of violation of the principle of protection of trust in the part of the judgment of the court of first instance, the number of pages 6, 12, and 18 shall be stated as follows.

According to Gap evidence Nos. 2 and 4, although the plaintiff was found to have been judged appropriate as a result of the remaining sample test of the same product imported on or around December 30, 2016, which was prior to the import of the product of this case, considering the overall purport of the pleadings in each of the statements No. 5-1 and No. 2, the pesticide of this case was not included in the items to be inspected among pesticide residues of 286 at the time of the above inspection, and the items to be inspected among agricultural chemicals remaining after the revision of the second of food standards and the second of the Act on the Analysis of Pre-Class Centents of Foods, as the items to be inspected among agricultural chemicals remaining after January 9, 2017 were expanded to 370, the product of this case constitutes a case where the product of this case falls under a case where the product of this case is re-imported as a result of the sample sample test that satisfies the conditions of "identical imported foods" on the basis of the above determination of suitability and was found appropriate as a result of the above examination of sample test.