The judgment below

Of them, the part against Defendant A, C, and F and the part against Defendant B and G agricultural partnership.

1. The lower court acquitted Defendant B and G farming association members on the violation of the Environment-Friendly Agriculture Fosterage Act, which indicated eco-friendly agricultural products on the agricultural products not certified among the facts charged against Defendant B and G farming association corporations, and only the Defendants appealed on the conviction portion, and as such, only the portion of the lower judgment’s conviction is subject to the party members’ judgment.

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A and the F (hereinafter “F”) (1) were in violation of the Environment-Friendly Agriculture Fosterage Act regarding the part on which the certified product as indicated in the lower judgment was indicated with other certification numbers (i) and (ii) rice and agricultural product-free rice, mixed with the rice produced by other producers within the same certification number, and there was no fact that the said Defendants stored and processed the rice in combination with the rice produced by other producers within the same certification number. However, there was no fact that the said Defendants stored and processed the rice corresponding to other certification

In other words, in the case of organic rice, the above Defendants did not purchase organic rice in other places in 2007, and sold rice produced by the above Defendants with Defendant F’s certification number displayed on organic rice, and in the case of agricultural chemicals without agricultural chemicals, purchased and processed agricultural chemicals without agricultural chemicals from farmers’ associations in 2008, but at the same time, approximately two weeks of agricultural chemicals produced by Defendant F with Defendant F’s certification number displayed and sold Defendant F’s agricultural chemicals without agricultural chemicals instead of being marked with the relevant certification number. As such, there was no fact different from the certified contents in the case of organic rice and agricultural chemicals. ② Some of the contents of the protocol prepared by the investigative agency stated to the effect that the above Defendants stored and processed rice by mixing with other rice, but this stated to the effect that the investigator who was in charge of the investigation of this case was in charge of the environment-friendly certification system or the process of purchasing rice, and the construction and degree of construction of Defendant F.