The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (fact-finding) indicated that “the name and origin of raw materials: 50% of sun-dried salt (product from home), 30% of refined salt (product from home) and 20% of refined salt (product from home)” in the posite on which the name of the product was indicated as “F” in the process of manufacturing provisional salt, and indicated that general consumers might be mistaken for the salt as re-dried salt not from home.

2. The lower court determined that Defendant A made re-processed salt by collecting 50% or 30% of Australian sun-dried salt and refined domestically produced salt at the rate of 50%:30%, and then sold 15 km or 20 km after mixing refined domestically produced salt with machinery at the rate of 80:20; Defendant A sold refined salt with 15 km or 20 km; Defendant A used refined salt to put them in a mixture; Defendant A’s re-dried salt with the food content indicated “F”, “raw materials ingredients and place of origin”, “50% of sun-dried salt (raw materials and place of origin): 50% of sun-dried salt (in Korea) and refined salt 20% of the salt refining; and (3) it appears that the re-dried salt products are in combination with the refined salt content indicated in the salt refining in Korea; and (2) it appears that the re-dried salt products are in combination with the salt content indicated in the Food Industry Promotion Act.”