The judgment below

The part against the defendant shall be reversed.

The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment of innocence is publicly notified.

1. The judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged against the Defendant, even though the Defendant had exercised due care and supervision over the grain dealer or grain in order to prevent false marking of the date as an industry, was erroneous in the misapprehension of facts and legal principles.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged against the Defendant is a corporation established for the purpose of the business of refining and selling grain produced by its members, etc., and A works as the head of sales division at the F rice processing site of the F Rice Processing Complex, which is located in the Ma of Young-si. The Defendant is a person in charge of Doing and

A From October 4, 2016 to November 1, 2016, from the point of view of the F Rice Processing Complex, from the point of view of the above B Agriculture Cooperatives: (a) Doing rice 43,655 km to the product name “G, etc.; and (b) subdividing it into the product name “G, etc.; (c) did not indicate the date of the Do; and (d) stored the Do rice in the warehouse without indicating the date of Do administration; and (e) when the order entered, it displayed the date of delivery differently as to the grain of KRW 199,901,095 for the above period, such as manufacturing and attaching a Stick indicating the date of delivery as the date of Do administration.

The Defendant, as such, displayed the date of grain processing differently from the fact and committed a violation in relation to his duties.

B. The lower court determined that the Defendant was not negligent in giving due attention and supervision to the pertinent business in order to prevent false marking of the date of the Do administration based on the comprehensive review of the evidence presented by the lower court and on the circumstances stated in its reasoning.

On the grounds that it cannot be seen that the Defendant was guilty of charges.

(c)

In full view of the following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below's judgment and the court below's judgment, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is sufficient in relation to the defendant's false marking of the date of the Do administration.