Defendant

Part of the judgment of the court below against A shall be reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for one year.

except that this shall not apply.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The sentence of Defendant A (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. Prosecutor 1) The former Food Sanitation Act (amended by Act No. 11985, Jul. 30, 2013; hereinafter “former Food Sanitation Act”) provides that: (a) mistake of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles (the part of the lower court’s acquittal against the Defendant);

Article 27 subparag. 2 of the Act on Testing and Inspection in the Food and Drug Industry and Article 28(1)2 of the Act on Testing and Inspection in the Food and Drug Industry do not limit the subject of punishment to the sexual records on “self-quality entrustment inspection.” The classification of the sexual records into “personnel”, “production for self-quality entrustment inspection”, “use for self-quality entrustment inspection”, etc. merely conform to the use or purpose of the sexual records designated by the food company, etc. which requested the inspection, and thus, it merely conforms to the use or purpose of the voluntarily designated sexual records, and even if the prosecutor’s substance is related to the standards and standards, it shall be punished by issuance of a false sexual records depending on whether the sexual records are true. Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the Defendant’s act of issuing the “public prosecutor” among the charges against the Defendant, and by misapprehending the legal principles as to the facts charged against the Defendant, the lower court acquitted Defendant A and the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles.

2. Determination

A. The summary of this part of the facts charged against the prosecutor's assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles is the defendant B's employee.