The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal principles) is recognized that the Defendant stored ducks and chickens meat in custody, cut it to each part, and made the packaged meat in packages in a cooling and refrigerating state, and it is reasonable to deem that it constitutes the meat packaging business, and therefore, it is subject to permission under Article 7(1) of the Livestock Products Sanitary Control Act.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and legal principles, which determined that the Defendant’s act was an act that can be performed without permission.

2. The Defendant’s act was within the scope permitted by the Enforcement Rule of the Livestock Products Sanitary Control Act [Attachment 2-3] [Attachment 4] [Attachment 2-3] (in the event that a consumer decided to purchase a cat or original meat packed at retail units and then requested a meat seller to open and cut the packaging for the convenience of cooking, the meat seller may put it in a plastic suitable for packages after sanitary cutting).

The evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is that the defendant cut meat in advance before being requested by the consumer and stored in a cooling state.

It is insufficient to recognize it.

Therefore, the prosecutor's above assertion is not accepted.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.