The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

The punishment sentenced by the court below against the defendant (two months of imprisonment, two years of probation, two years of surcharge, 250,400,000) is too unreasonable.

Judgment

It is recognized that the defendant recognized the crime of this case, and there is no record of punishment for the same crime.

However, the crime of this case is deemed to have purchased and sold non-imported foods. The purpose of the Food Sanitation Act for the purpose of sale is to prevent danger and injury caused by foods and to promote and improve national health by distributing the foods imported for the purpose of sale after the prescribed inspection. Thus, the crime of this case is not less complicated, the quantity of domestic food sold by the defendant is a significant amount of quantity, and in particular, the defendant is subject to additional collection compared to the profits acquired. However, as mentioned in the court below, even though the expenses paid by the defendant to obtain criminal proceeds have been disbursed from the criminal proceeds, they cannot be deducted from the criminal proceeds because they are merely a method of consuming criminal proceeds (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2007Do675, Nov. 15, 2007; 2005Do7146, Jun. 29, 2006). Thus, the defendant's assertion that the defendant's criminal charges of this case cannot be accepted after deducting the defendant's motive and condition of the crime of this case from the defendant's argument.

In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is without merit.