The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that G was aware that G was a son, and there was no fact that G was recommended to do so by his will, and although G did not make the said remarks, it did not force him to make the said remarks, the court below convicted the Defendant. The judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination of the facts to be observed by a food service business operator under the Food Sanitation Act refers to the "act of inducing the personal effects" (Article 44(1) of the former Food Sanitation Act (amended by Act No. 11690, Mar. 23, 2013); Article 57 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Food Sanitation Act (amended by Ordinance of the Prime Minister No. 1010, Mar. 23, 2013); Article 57 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Food Sanitation Act (amended by Ordinance of the Prime Minister No. 1010, Mar. 23, 2013); Article 6 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Food Sanitation Act [Attachment Table 1

According to each evidence presented by the court below, it can be sufficiently recognized that the defendant, as stated in the facts charged, called "a good place" to G as "Ar. Dok Dok Dok Dok Dok Dok Dok-si" and let the defendant go to the defendant's house, and such act constitutes "a competitive act" as stipulated in the matters to be observed by food service business operators.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is just, and it cannot be said that there were errors by mistake of facts.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

[However, under Article 25 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure, the "Food Sanitation Act" is amended as the "former Food Sanitation Act (amended by Act No. 11690, Mar. 23, 2013)".