The Defendants are not guilty.

1. According to Article 97 subparag. 6 and Article 44 subparag. 1 subparag. 8 of the Food Sanitation Act, Article 57 of the Enforcement Rule of the Food Sanitation Act, and Article 17 subparag. 1(a) of the attached Table 17 of the Enforcement Rule of the Food Sanitation Act, food manufacturers, manufacturers of food additives, and their employees shall prepare documents related to production and work records and documents related to the receipt and delivery of raw materials, but shall not make a false statement.

In such cases, the relevant documents shall be kept for three years from the date of the last entry.

The Defendants and the Defendant’s defense counsel drafted a document on the production and work records as a hand, and only some parts were omitted from the document prepared by computer, and thus, they did not violate the Food Sanitation Act.

The argument is asserted.

In light of the evidence evidence No. 1 submitted by the Defendants (as the same evidence is bound to the page 16 of the evidence record, it can be known that there was a document that existed at the time of crackdown), it can be seen that the part of the production and work record recorded in the facts charged in the instant case can be entirely omitted.

Article 97 subparagraph 6 of the Food Sanitation Act and Article 44 (1) subparagraph 8 of the Food Sanitation Act, Article 57 of the Enforcement Rule of the Food Sanitation Act, and Article 17 subparagraph 1(a) of the attached Table 17 provide the duty to prepare documents concerning the production and work records in a true manner, and there is no provision that the documents concerning the production and work records should be prepared in a fixed computer file.

Therefore, Defendant A and his employees have fulfilled their obligations under Article 97 subparag. 6 and Article 44 subparag. 1 subparag. 8 of the Food Sanitation Act, Article 57 of the Enforcement Rule of the Food Sanitation Act, Article 17 subparag. 1(a) of the Food Sanitation Act, and attached Table 17 subparag. 1(a) of the Food Sanitation Act.

may be seen.

Ultimately, the evidence presented by the prosecutor alone that Defendant A and its employees did not prepare production and work records.

Since it is insufficient to recognize the facts charged of this case, it is proven that crime.