The appeal by the Defendants and the prosecutor shall be dismissed respectively.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A’s assertion that the instant facts charged against Defendant A did not constitute the false labelling of “sents” constitutes “raw materials” other than “surine gas”, and Article 32(1)4 of the Livestock Products Sanitary Control Act provides that Defendant A’s raw materials are not subject to false labelling, and Article 52(1)4 of the Enforcement Rule of the Livestock Products Sanitary Control Act, which provides for false labelling, does not deviate from the limit of delegated legislation provided for in Article 32(2) of the Livestock Products Sanitary Control Act, and thus, Defendant A’s false labelling of “surines” as “surines” of the livestock products. In light of the relevant laws and regulations, such as the Enforcement Rule of the Livestock Products Sanitary Control Act or the standards for labeling of livestock products (Ministry of Food and Drug Safety Notice No. 2013-150, hereinafter “Standards for labeling of livestock products”), and Article 32(1) of the Livestock Products Sanitary Control Act provides for false labelling.

(2) Article 32(1) of the Livestock Products Sanitary Control Act prohibiting false labelling that the penal provision violates the principle of clarity, Article 52(1)4 of the Enforcement Rule of the Livestock Products Sanitary Control Act, Article 52(1)4 of the Enforcement Rule of the Livestock Products Sanitary Control Act, and Article 52(1)4 of the Enforcement Rule of the Livestock Products Sanitary Control Act, which provides for the method of indicating the proportion of raw materials, are not clearly prescribed. The above provisions of the Livestock Products Sanitary Control Act, which form the instant penal provision

(3) the Livestock Products Sanitary Control Act claiming that it is not a false indication legally expressed in accordance with the relevant provisions.