The defendants' appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the sentence of the lower court against the Defendants (two years of suspended sentence and confiscation, two years of suspended sentence in June, and two years of suspended sentence in case of Defendant D Co., Ltd.: fine of KRW 10 million and provisional payment order in the case of Defendant A) is too heavy.

2. The judgment of the Defendants is favorable to the Defendants, such as the following: (a) the Defendants led to the confession of the crime; (b) the Defendants appears to have not caused health problems, such as illness, etc. due to the ice cream manufactured and sold by the Defendants; (c) Defendant A did not have any criminal history other than the punishment of a fine once due to the crime of violating the Food Sanitation Act; (d) Defendant B and C were primary offenders; (c) Defendant A played a role in cultural and economic exchanges between Korea and Turkey; and (d) Defendant A’s family members and branch members want to have the Defendant’s preference.

However, the crime of this case is that the defendants manufactured and sold ice cream without obtaining permission for livestock product processing business. The crime of this case is no less than the nature of the crime because ice cream sold without inspection of safety and quality may harm the public trust in livestock products. The quantity and sales period of ice cream manufactured and sold is considerable and it cannot be deemed that the sales amount are less than the amount. The defendants' facilities that manufactured and sold ice cream are operated by Turkey, which had supplied ice cream to the defendants, and the defendants take over the facilities in the past while they closed the place of business. At the time, in order to manufacture and sell ice cream, the defendants were aware of the fact that the above facilities were manufactured and operated by Turkey, which had been in conformity with safety inspections and quality inspections due to excessive detection of ice cream, etc., but the defendants acquired the above facilities and operated the ice cream as it is without obtaining permission.