All appeals filed by the prosecutor against the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of the grounds for appeal (the factual error, misunderstanding of legal principles)

A. In full view of the following circumstances as to the violation of the Food Sanitation Act, the Defendants constitute a crime of violating the Food Sanitation Act stated in the facts charged.

① The lower court determined that Defendant A was not liable for the lack of direct dispatch of the products.

However, the facts charged in the instant case do not simply refer to the act of dispatching a product to the extent that the product was used for the business without Korean language labeling, and thus, its scope should be widened.

② Since the size of Defendant Incorporated Agricultural Company B (hereinafter “Defendant B”) was not significant, employees G engaged in the business on behalf of Defendant A, even if the report or approval was not made with respect to the dispatch of altered products, as an agent or a manager of Defendant A, who was responsible for the overall business process, even if the company’s employees G did not obtain the report or approval from Defendant A.

③ Defendant A, as a person responsible for the delivery of products, made several calls with F and discussed compensation therefor.

B. In light of the relationship between Defendant A and the victim F, Defendant A’s employee at the victim’s customer position, and the situation at the time when Defendant A had made a favorable speech to the victim, the Defendant’s act constitutes a crime of intimidation beyond the level acceptable by social norms, in light of the circumstances, etc.

2. Determination

A. The lower court found the Defendant not guilty on the ground that there was no evidence to prove all the facts charged of this case in full view of the following facts and circumstances admitted by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court.

1 The Defendants on the part of the violation of the Food Sanitation Act (hereinafter “E”) include the fact that G received an additional compensation from F’s civil petition telephone and the F claimed additional compensation, and delivered to F one of the altered products produced by the “E” company to the leased State, but F products.