All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) The part prohibiting the distribution of freezing food refrigerating (misunderstanding the legal doctrine) supplied to D with air conditioners for the sake of a swine hold decoration constitutes “processing” and does not constitute “distribution”.

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged. In so doing, it erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2) The freezing of the freezing ban (misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles) of the frozen goods in the sea would inevitably entail the raw material meat in the process of manufacturing and processing.

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

3) The violation of the freezing distribution standard (misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of the legal principles) portion, in the transport of frozen products, packing 3-6 ice factoring in the ice stuff and distributing after packing 3-6 ice stuff constitutes “a method having the same effect as or higher than the freezing vehicle.”

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

4) The sentence sentenced by the lower court (two years of suspended sentence in one year and six months) is too unreasonable.

B. The fact that the prosecutor Defendant keeps the date of production, production, etc. using X-cell files and keeps the sales place, sales volume, etc. through the adequate sales inventory system does not correspond to the extent that the production and sales volume of the product can be grasped.

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant not guilty on this part of the facts charged on the ground that there was no proof of crime. In so doing, it erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby affecting the conclusion

2. Determination as to the misapprehension of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

A. Determination on the Defendant’s assertion 1) Distribution of freezing food refrigerating.