The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 300,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, the defendant uses both domestic kimchi and traditional Korean kimchi in his/her restaurant operated by himself/herself, and the fact that he/she indicates the country of origin of kimchi as a Chinese traditional kimchi, and only uses Chinese kimchi as a Chinese traditional kimchi.

However, the lower court erred by misapprehending the fact that the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (one million won in penalty) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) The judgment of the court below also asserted the same purport as the grounds for appeal in this part, and according to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the court below held that the defendant was using only Chinese Chinese emulchi for anti-con purposes after purchasing Chinese emulchi around February 12, 2015. The defendant, like this case, used only Chinese emulchi as anti-con for anti-conver, although he used it as anti-conver for inter-Korean emulpa, it is sufficient to make it difficult for consumers to understand the country of origin of kimchi as domestic products or to find it difficult for them to find out which place of origin is domestically. Thus, the court below held that the defendant used Chinese emulchi as well as this case.

Even if there is a violation of Article 6(2)1 of the Act on Origin Labeling of Agricultural and Fishery Products, the assertion was rejected on the ground that it constitutes “an act of making a false or misleading indication of origin” prohibited under Article 6(2)1 of the Act.

2) Examining the reasoning of the judgment of the court below in a thorough manner with the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, it is proper to acknowledge and determine the above facts, and contrary to the defendant's assertion, the court below did not err by misapprehending the facts, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion

B. The origin is the same as the instant crime.