All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of the facts or legal principles, Defendant A, rather than simply re-packaged the entire returned rice, did not merely merely re-packaged it, and thus, even if the date of processing was indicated on the date of re-processing rather than the previous processing date prior to return, it did not have any false indication, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. Sentencing unfair sentencing by the lower court is too unreasonable, because each sentence sentenced to the Defendants (Defendant A and Defendant B’s agricultural partnership: KRW 5 million each of the fines) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) Determination on the assertion of misunderstanding the facts or misapprehension of the legal principles under Article 20-2(1) of the Grain Management Act provides that “When grain manufacturers or grain dealers intend to sell grain, matters prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, such as the quality of the year of production of the grain, shall be indicated on the packaging and containers, etc.” under Article 20-2(2) of the same Act provides that “the matters necessary for the method of indication, etc. under paragraph (1) shall be prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation.”

Accordingly, Article 7-3 of the Enforcement Rule of the Grain Management Act provides that “The indication of grain and the method of indication under Article 20-2 of the Grain Management Act shall be as specified in attached Table 4.” According to the above Enforcement Rule [Attachment 4] subparagraph 1(a)(5)(b) of subparagraph 1(b) of the above Enforcement Rule, “where a mixture of rice strings different from strings is made, an indication first of all shall be made.”

2) In the instant case, in full view of the facts acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court in light of the aforementioned relevant laws and regulations, Defendant A, even though the date of mixing different rices, was indicated first as the date of re- packing for returned rice.