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

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal: ① The provisions pertaining to food sale business and food manufacturing and processing business are regulated by the food transportation business and manufacturing and storage facilities, and they are not regulated by the requirements for food transportation equipment and management methods, and thus it is not possible to manage and supervise food transportation business or food manufacturing and processing business; ② one business place falls under any one of the food transportation business, food sale business, and food manufacturing and processing business, and it is necessary to ensure that all reports on food transportation business and food sales business can be conducted concurrently; ③ the delivery of active foods by the defendants falls under the actual food transportation business, not the vehicle cost for the sale; ④ the legislative process, legislative purport, etc. of the proviso of Article 21 subparag. 4 of the Enforcement Decree of the Food Sanitation Act, which affected the conclusion of the judgment of the court below, and the court below erred in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the Defendants’ error in the misapprehension of the aforementioned proviso of Article 21 subparag. 4 of the Enforcement Decree of the Food Sanitation Act, which affected the Defendants’ decision.

2. Based on the circumstances stated in its reasoning, the lower court determined that the Defendants sold active fish and transported active fish at the buyer’s request is proviso to Article 21 subparag. 4 of the Enforcement Decree of the Food Sanitation Act.