The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The main point of the grounds for appeal is that the lower court’s punishment (a year and six months of imprisonment, a fine of ten million won) is too unreasonable.

2. The facts of the instant crime are that the Defendant, while making processed goods or food materials for agricultural products, such as Chinese agricultural shoulder, red powder, and bean, sold to the school meal services company, etc., by falsely indicating the origin as domestic products.

Although there was no toxic substance found in the Defendant’s factory as a result of the examination of the quality entrustment of red powder, red powder powder, and bean oil, it was judged that the hazardous substance was found.

The processed products or food materials produced by the defendant are not domestically nor partly mixed with domestic agricultural products.

Many of the family members of the defendant want to be the wife of the defendant.

The defendant has continued to engage in community service activities, and it seems that social attention is clear.

However, the crime of this case is a crime that damages the distribution order of processed agricultural products by providing false information on agricultural products, infringes the consumer's right to know, and damages the consumer's trust, and has great social harm.

The possibility of criticism is high in that most of the processed products or food materials produced by the defendant have been supplied for school meal services.

The defendant's market supply transaction for school meal service in order to supply domestic products is cut because it is difficult to secure agricultural products, such as domestic shoulder.

Although the crime of this case where the country of origin is falsely indicated is not justified, considering the motive for the crime of this case, the crime of this case where the country of origin is falsely indicated is not justified.

Considering that the number of sales of agricultural products with the Defendant’s false origin exceeds 4,800 times and the sales amount also exceeds 24,000 million won, the Defendant’s aforementioned sales amount is considerably high.