The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

The request for adjudication on the constitutionality of the instant case is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, Article 2015-4 of the Notice on Safety Control of Food and Drug (amended by February 3, 2015) of the Ministry of Food and Drug Safety (amended by Act No. 1314, Feb. 3, 2015; hereinafter “food code”) provides sufficient explanation that the Defendant’s hair removed and sold the raw materials to ordinary consumers in freezing condition, namely, the method of taking the raw materials into close sugar resources, and that the melting in the form of melting sugar or melting in the form of melting or melting melting, etc., without going through the drying process.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case is erroneous in the misapprehension of relevant laws and regulations.

B. The contents regulated under Article 7(4) of the Food Sanitation Act by misunderstanding the legal principles are to restrict the act of drinking the melting the melting the melting of the melting food without cooking the melting food, and it is not a legislation to regulate the general consumers by purchasing the melting the melting food and cooking it as extraction processed food.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine that found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged by interpreting the above provision to regulate the sales partner for melting.

In addition, Article 26-2 (2) of the Food Sanitation Act does not violate Article 7 (4) of the Food Sanitation Act because it is clear that melting is a natural product and there is no restriction on objects to be sold in selling natural products.

2. Judgment on the grounds for appeal

A. Article 7 (Food or Food additives) of the former Food Sanitation Act (Amended by Act No. 14022, Feb. 3, 2016) (Amended by Act No. 14022, Feb. 3, 2016)