The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The sentence of punishment against the Defendants shall be suspended separately.

1. As to the facts charged in this case, the court below found Defendant A not guilty on the ground that: (a) the Internet homepage of Defendant B, a false country of origin labeling, was produced and managed by an external company; and (b) Defendant A, a responsible manager in the supervising and supervising company, entered the false country of origin labeling on the website; (c) failed to discover the above false facts due to negligence in business affairs and left alone; and (d) it is difficult to recognize the criminal intent. According to the records, the management status of the website is merely merely the Defendants’ assertion; (d) Defendant A stated that the employees of the company are managing the website at the time of crackdown; (e) even if the external company was managed by the external company, Defendant A, who is finally responsible for the entries on the website, did not confirm the country of origin labeling, one of the most important matters in the food company; and (e) it is sufficient to recognize the incomplete intent of Defendant A as to the facts charged in this case.

Nevertheless, there is an error of misconception of the fact that the court below acquitted each of them.

2. Determination

A. Defendant A is the head of the sales headquarters working at the branch office of Defendant B (hereinafter “Defendant Company”) on the second floor of the building E in light of light and has all the authority and responsibility for the indication of origin of kimchi products sold on the Defendant Company’s website and its website.

Defendant

The company is a corporation that produces and sells kimchi and belongs to defendant A.

1. No one shall make a false indication of origin or make an indication that may cause confusion as to the origin.

Nevertheless, Defendant A on September 1, 201.