The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Examining the background leading up to the misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles (the part concerning violation of the Animal Protection Act) opening the door of a sales store, evidence collection was conducted in violation of the warrant requirement by an investigative agency, and thus, F, G’s statements and field pictures, etc. based thereon are inadmissible.

In addition, it is difficult to believe that the statements, etc. of E and D are inconsistent, and there is no fact that the Defendant abused them in a way that does not intentionally feed or water, by making it available to the second floor warehouse of the post-sale store whether or not they are suspected to have contracted diseases, such as red stations, etc.

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged. In so determining, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (eight months of imprisonment, two years of suspended sentence, and community service order) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the argument on illegally collected evidence, the defendant argued to the same purport in the court below, and the court below rejected the above argument by clearly explaining the defendant's argument and its decision in detail at the end, and comparing the reasoning of the court below with the records, the above judgment of the court below is just, and there is no error of law as otherwise alleged by the defendant.

B. Considering the difference between the spirit of the principle of substantial direct examination and the method of evaluating the credibility of the first instance court and the appellate court’s determination as to the assertion that there was no abuse, there are special circumstances to deem that the first instance court’s determination on the credibility of the statement made by the witness of the first instance was clearly erroneous, or the result of the first instance court’s examination and the evidence duly examined in the first instance court, which were additionally conducted not later than the time of closing argument.