The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal: ① the Defendant’s act of delivering active fish, etc. falls under the actual food transportation business, not the source of service following the sale; ② the food sale business and food manufacturing and processing business regulations regulate food storage facilities and manufacturing facilities, but do not regulate the requirements for food transportation equipment and methods of management and supervision; ③ one business place does not fall under any one of the food transportation business, food sale business, food manufacturing and processing business, and food manufacturing and processing business; ③ it is necessary to have the Defendant manage and supervise all the reports of food transportation business and food sale business in consideration of the legislative process, legislative intent, etc. of Article 21 subparag. 4 proviso of the Enforcement Decree of the Food Sanitation Act; ④ The proviso to Article 21 subparag. 4 of the Enforcement Decree of the Food Sanitation Act should be interpreted as a case involving the Defendant’s report as being inevitably limited to the Defendant’s food transportation business in the course of purchasing food from the relevant business place to sell.

Nevertheless, the court below found the defendant not guilty on the ground that the defendant's act of transporting food for sale at a business operator's place of business under the proviso of Article 21 (4) of the Enforcement Decree of the above Act constitutes "the case where the defendant transports food for sale at the business operator's place of business."

2. Determination

A. The lower court, based on the circumstances indicated in its reasoning, held that the Defendant, while selling active fish, etc., transported active fish, etc. at the buyer’s request.