The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The sentence of sentence against the defendant shall be suspended.

1. Progress of judgment;

A. The Prosecutor appealed against the lower judgment that acquitted the Defendant of the instant facts charged on the grounds of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal doctrine, and the Prosecutor rejected the Prosecutor’s assertion and rendered a judgment dismissing the appeal.

On this issue, a prosecutor has been awarded a final appeal.

B. The Supreme Court has erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the interpretation of the Food Sanitation Act and the Enforcement Decree of the Food Sanitation Act, which affected the conclusion of the judgment prior to the remand.

Accordingly, the judgment of the court below was reversed, and the case was remanded.

2. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor as to the gist of the grounds for appeal, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby making a mistake of finding the Defendant not guilty.

3. Judgment on the grounds for appeal

A. The lower court found the Defendant not guilty on the ground that the Defendant’s selling of freezing fishery products and transporting them without any separate profit upon the buyer’s request falls under “the case of transporting food for sale at the business office of the relevant business operator” under the proviso of Article 21 subparag. 4 of the Enforcement Decree of the Food Sanitation Act, and thus excluded from the case of reporting food transportation business.

B. For the following reasons, the Defendant’s business constitutes a business that must report food transportation business pursuant to Article 37(4) of the Food Sanitation Act, and it is reasonable to view that the Defendant’s act of not completing such a report constitutes a crime of violating the Food Sanitation Act.

Therefore, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and misapprehending the legal doctrine, which determined that the facts charged in the instant case were not a crime.

(1) A person who intends to engage in a business prescribed by Presidential Decree under the former part of Article 37 (4) of the Food Sanitation Act shall engage in such business by type of business, as prescribed by Presidential Decree.