All appeals filed by the prosecutor against the Defendants are dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal: (a) the Defendants collected and inspected some products in order to conduct an inspection of cryp for the products in the same form as those distributed in the market; (b) all products except the recovered products are in progress as they are, and then packaged in the warehouse; and (c) if the result of a product inspection is confirmed to be appropriate, the products stored in the warehouse are shipped out as they are stored without manufacturing or processing process and distributed in the market; (d) on the other hand, if it is confirmed to be inappropriate as the result of a product inspection, the Defendants re-processed them at the time of the completion of packing prior to the inspection by the cryp group; and (e) the Defendants re-processed them as final products that need no manufacturing process any longer.

Food Sanitation Act clearly prohibits reprocessing food in violation of the standards and specifications.

As a result, attached Table 23 of the Enforcement Rule of the Food Sanitation Act only re-verification of the act prohibited by the above act by amending the Enforcement Rule on October 21, 2015 to strengthen the administrative disposition due to the suspension of manufacturing items and the disposal of the pertinent product on October 21, 2015, on the premise that “the act of using non-conforming products as raw materials of other products” was clearly prohibited by Article 7(4) of the Food Sanitation Act as a result of the administrative disposition criteria. If the act of this case is permitted, it would result in the fact that the food manufacturer would re-processing the unfit products and not re-processing the final problem. This would not only threaten food safety because it could not be interpreted by the logic that the food manufacturer does not have to take into account the food sanitation condition of the process at all, but also threaten food safety.