The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, the Defendant was guilty on the facts that he worked in a warehouse in Namyang-si, Namyang-si, but there was no awareness that he sold a mixture of domestic and domestic rice as domestically rice, and even if he did not conspired with C, D, etc., the lower court found the Defendant guilty on the facts charged. Therefore, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In relation to the assertion of mistake of fact, the conspiracy is not required under the law, but is only a combination of two or more persons to jointly process and realize a crime. Although there is no process of the entire conspiracy, if the combination of doctors is made in order or impliedly through several persons, it is established if there is no process of the entire conspiracy.

In addition, in a case where the defendant acknowledged the facts directly involved in the act of the crime and denies criminal intent, the facts constituting such subjective elements are bound to be proved by the method of proving indirect facts with considerable relevance to the criminal intent due to the nature of the things, and what constitutes indirect facts with considerable relevance should be determined by the method of reasonably determining the link of facts based on close observation or analysis based on normal empirical rule (see Supreme Court Decision 98Do2654 delivered on Nov. 24, 1998, etc.). According to the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, the defendant, etc. put domestic and domestic rice into packaging for domestic origin in the warehouse of Yangyang-si, and attaching a boiler indicating the ratio of domestic products and domestic products in the above rice distribution belt marked as domestic products.