Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against Defendant A and the judgment of the court of second instance shall be reversed in entirety.

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant C: The Defendant, after going through the police and the prosecutor’s investigation process, reversed his statement as to whether the Defendant constitutes a double-generation environment, which he purchased from each producer (K, AE, BL, BM, and BI) without any special reason until the original trial is in the court; and the Defendant purchased a general double-production relationship on the part of the contract for double-generation culture cultivation, which was submitted by the Defendant.

There is no difference between the terms of the contract with the producer stated in the statement and the terms of the contract, and the results of the National Agricultural Product Quality Institute's inquiry of environmentally friendly evidence information on July 1, 2014 do not serve as the basis of double and additional environment as stated in the facts charged. Thus, the court below's judgment which acquitted Defendant C of part of the facts charged on the sole basis of the defendant's assertion is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts.

B) Defendant E: (a) send to the Defendant a package containing a pro-friendly environment-certified poster at the time when the Defendant attempted to glutinous rice with 12 tons of ordinary 26 tons of rice on three occasions; and (b) send it to the Defendant a package with glutinous rice.

The Defendant’s statement at the prosecution of A, on May 3, 2014, the glutinous rice, which was Doed at AH, was loaded in one ton vehicle, and the eco-friendly certification mark was attached to the packaging, and the Defendant purchased three glutinous rice, and thus, the Defendant’s statement at BN police was credibility. Thus, the lower court acquitted Defendant E of the facts.

2) The sentence of the lower court (Defendant A: 1 year and 6 months of imprisonment with prison labor in the first instance court; 8 months of imprisonment with prison labor in the second instance; 1 year and 6 months of imprisonment with prison labor in the case of Defendant B; 3: Defendant C: fine of KRW 7,000,000) is too uneased and unfair.

B. Defendant A and B’s punishment is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. We examine ex officio prior to the prosecutor’s ex officio judgment on Defendant A and the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the Defendant.

. Prosecutors;