The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

1. Progress of judgment;

A. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged and sentenced the Defendant to a fine of KRW 1 million.

B. On this ground, the Defendant appealed on the grounds of misapprehending the legal principles, and the trial prior to the return was dismissed by the Defendant.

(c)

On the other hand, the Defendant appealed on the ground of misunderstanding of legal principles, and the Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the party before remanding for the following reasons.

The "consumer" under Article 36 subparagraph 2 of the Enforcement Rule of the Animal Protection Act refers to a person who purchases companion animals and raises them for the purpose of returning them at home, and the court below determined that the "consumer" under Article 36 subparagraph 2 of the Enforcement Rule of the Animal Protection Act includes a person who purchases companion animals and sells them to others, such as a return animal seller, and a person who purchases and sells them to others. Thus, the court below determined that "the business of mediating and receiving commission between a return animal producer and a return animal seller" is also an animal sales business. In so determining, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on animal sales business subject to registration under the Animal Protection Act, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion

[....]

2. Summary of the grounds for appeal: In light of the ordinary meaning of the language and text of the misunderstanding of the legal principles and the Enforcement Rule of the Animal Protection Act, the court below, even though the defendant did not make an “animal sales business” on the ground that, as the defendant, the companion animal producer and the broker engaging in the business of mediating and collecting fees from both parties, the broker did not directly sell dogs to consumers, and thus, did not make an “animal sales business.”

In light of the fact that the facts charged in this case were found guilty, which constitutes illegal expansion interpretation contrary to the principle of criminal justice, and that the interpretation of the competent authority is inconsistent, the above judgment of the court below shall be erroneous in its judgment, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.