All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the grounds of appeal by the Defendants, the lower court, based on the purpose of the Sanitary Control of Livestock Products Act, processing standards of former livestock products, and specifications of ingredients (amended by Presidential Decree No. 2013-206 of the Food and Drug Safety Notice, Aug. 8, 2013; hereinafter “standards for processing livestock products”) 1.

5. Processing standards and 1. In cases of livestock products;

8. Comprehensively taking into account the structure and details of the regulations on standards for preservation and distribution, the following matters: (a) the livestock product processing guidelines amended on October 8, 2013 (referred to as “F” in the judgment of the court below) following the instant case were operated to cut freezing meat or remove bones, etc. for freezing meat; (b) the food and drug safety wife held on August 30, 2012 and the details discussed at meetings of the representatives of meat processing companies; and (c) the instant freezing meat was stored in N’s warehouse after completion of cutting and first line screening, while transporting the instant frozen meat to the cold storage of the Defendant F (hereinafter referred to as “F”) and keeping it in the refrigerating warehouse of the Jancheon Factory in the process of storing it in the freezing warehouse of the Jancheon Factory in the form of the relevant livestock product distribution standards; and (d) the relevant livestock product distribution standards were in substance in the process of processing.

8. Considering that the provisions on standards for preservation and distribution apply, the lower court convicted Defendant A, D, and F of the violation of the Sanitary Control of Livestock Products due to the violation of standards for the processing of livestock products (excluding the portion of innocence) and the facts charged against Defendant B, C, and E (excluding the portion of innocence for reasons).

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the evidence duly admitted, the lower court’s aforementioned determination is justifiable.

In so doing, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on interpretation of the Sanitary Control Act, as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

2. As to the prosecutor's grounds for appeal

A. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the record, the lower court’s determination that the Defendants violated the Sanitary Control Act due to the Defendants’ violation of livestock product processing standards.