농약관리법위반
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendants are not guilty. The summary of this judgment is publicly announced.
1. The gist of the grounds for appeal is that the instant facts charged were modified on September 30, 2013, which was already issued, at the request of the requester, to prosecute the act of re-issuance of the test report on December 2, 2014, and did not prosecute the act of failing to prepare the test report on December 2, 2014, as indicated in the test data.
The phrase “satisfal change” indicated in the test result sheet on September 30, 2013 and the expression “satisfying” indicated in the test result sheet on December 2, 2014 are different expressions per se of facts about the symptoms of the subject medicine. Such modifications are arbitrarily changed from the facts of the test result sheet.
However, the court below rendered a not-guilty verdict on the facts charged of this case on the grounds as stated in its reasoning. The court below erred by misunderstanding the facts.
2. In the trial of the case, the prosecutor ex officio determined that the part against the defendant A among the facts charged of this case is permitted by this court by applying for changes in the indictment as stated in Paragraph 1 of the revised facts charged below. Accordingly, the judgment of the court below is no longer maintained in this regard since the subject of the judgment of the court below was different from the judgment of the court below as to the defendant A and the defendant B.
3. Determination of the changed facts charged
A. The summary of the revised facts charged is that Defendant B Co., Ltd. (formerly changed C Co., Ltd.) is a corporation that manufactures fertilizers and nitrogen compounds, and Defendant A is a researcher affiliated with Defendant B, which is located in Daejeon U.S. F.
1. Defendant A re-issues a test report on regional adaptability tests in H (hereinafter “instant medicine”) that issued the test report (hereinafter “the primary test report”) at around December 2014, and around April 30, 2013 at the request of the said B office, and around September 30, 2013 at around around around April 2013, the Defendant provided the symptoms in the part of “after 10 days” in the test report.