The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Therefore, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine that found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged, which constitute the act of processing without permission, despite the fact that the Defendant’s act of entering the facts constituting the crime in the lower judgment is merely a violation of the matters to be observed by a livestock product dealer, and thus should be punished pursuant to Articles 45(4)11 and 31(2)4 of the Livestock Products Sanitary Control Act.

B. Even if the facts charged in the instant case are found guilty, the sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant (the amount of KRW 5 million) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The court below rejected the above assertion by stating in detail the assertion of the defendant and his defense counsel under the title "a judgment on the argument of the defendant and the defense counsel" in the judgment of the court below, with the same assertion as the grounds for appeal in this part of the judgment of the court below. In light of the above judgment of the court below in comparison with the records, the judgment of the court below is just and it is erroneous in the misunderstanding of legal principles as to the defendant and their defense counsel, and there

subsection (b) of this section.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

B. The Defendant has no record of any particular criminal punishment other than a fine imposed once for a crime of double species. At present, the Defendant is running the meat packaging business after obtaining permission for the meat packaging business. However, even though the violation period is more than two years and the number of violations is less than 100 times, it is necessary to severely punish an unauthorized business act in light of the legislative purpose of the Livestock Products Sanitary Control Act, such as the sound development of the livestock industry and the improvement of public health, and the lower court also reduced the amount of fine under the summary order by taking into account the favorable circumstances in front.