The judgment below

The guilty part shall be reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 4,000,000.

The above fine shall be imposed on the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding the facts as to the guilty portion and misunderstanding of the legal principles, and marking of the meat, meat, meat, and meat products sold by the Defendant is merely an indication to inform consumers intending to purchase the above meat products of the information about the meat slaughtered in the manner of raising the above meat, and it is not similar to the foreign meat certification mark. As such, the Defendant used the certified contents on the packages of livestock products or indicated similar contents.

shall not be deemed to exist.

2) The sentence sentenced by the lower court (eight months of imprisonment and two years of suspended sentence) is too unreasonable.

(b) Inspection 1) In order to obtain accreditation of the fact of the non-crimes or certification of the raising to be conducted in a foreign country, a critical requirement must be satisfied with regard to the qualifications and number of slaughters, the location, facilities and size of slaughterhouses, and the slaughter procedures.

The method of raising is not the first place in Korea but the method of raising the livestock products being widely used in Korea is separately established.

It shall be in accordance with the standards established in the foreign country after the day is slaughtered in the manner of raising.

Defendant slaughtered a chickens in such a manner as to meet the requirements required by the above foreign country.

Unless recognized, animals were slaughtered in a manner that slaughters in a way that does not cause any pain to animals, solely on the basis that they were slaughtered in a manner that slaughters in an outer and kymaned tool.

subsection (b) of this section.

2) The sentence sentenced by the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) With respect to the Defendant’s appeal, the lower court ex officio determined by applying Article 48(1) of the Criminal Act, forfeited the list of transaction partners (Evidence No. 1), details of the revenue tax account (Evidence No. 2), and electronic information-related files (Evidence No. 3). However, the said documents or files have been provided for criminal conduct.