The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles) established a crime of violation of the Sanitary Control of Livestock Products Act relating to the distribution and sale of packaging meat bearing the trademark of this case without reporting the distribution-specialized sales business of livestock products, inasmuch as the Defendant has a trade right granted by the Nonghyup trademark owner with respect to the instant agricultural trademark.

2. The prosecutor’s assertion of the judgment became a key issue in the lower court, and the lower court acquitted the Defendant of the instant facts charged while explaining the grounds for the judgment in detail.

There is no evidence to be additionally submitted and examined in the trial. (1) The livestock product distribution structure of this case was based on the judgment of the court below, which was duly adopted and examined by the court below, and was based on the following circumstances, i.e., (1) the structure of supplying meat to the defendant by requesting the processing and packing process, and the defendant again supplied the processed and packing meat to the agricultural product joint wholesale market, and attaching the trademark to the defendant. Since it was not different from supplying the packaging meat of the agricultural products to the defendant who is the distributor, it is difficult to readily conclude that the defendant's act constitutes the livestock product distribution business with the trademark of the distributor itself, which is punished by the law of this case, rather than the meat sale business, and (2) although the defendant was granted the right to use the trademark of this case from the agricultural cooperative during this process, it seems to have been merely a tool to meet the appearance of the above trade structure, and the defendant seems not to have any obvious error in the judgment of the court below or to maintain reasonable circumstances.

Therefore, the prosecutor's assertion of mistake is justified.