When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

The Defendant is a person who operates a general restaurant under the trade name of “D” in the former non-military territory C.

No person who sells or provides agricultural and fishery products or the processed products thereof after cooking shall place a false indication of the place of origin or place a mark likely to cause confusion therewith.

From around December 15, 2014 to January 5, 2015, the Defendant purchased an amount equivalent to 40 kilograms of ship-to-port manufactured by “E” from “E” F to “Korea: Chinese, Chinese, Chinese, and Chinese, and provided them for customers in return. However, around January 5, 2015, the Defendant indicated the place of origin on the signboard of “D cafeteria” as “kimchi: Korean, Chinese: Chinese, and Chinese.”

Accordingly, the Defendant made a false indication of origin.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Some statements made against the defendant during the police interrogation protocol;

1. Each investigation report (joint enforcement of crackdowns, such as winter ski ground, investigation of details of purchase of skik Kim), joint control plan, joint control plan, report and status of the results of inspection, statement of the details of detection, confirmation, and photograph;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes governing the business report;

1. Relevant Article 15 of the Act on the Origin Labeling of Agricultural and Fishery Products and Articles 6 (2) 1 of the Act on the Selection of Origin of Agricultural and Fishery Products (excluding punishment) concerning facts constituting an offense;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. Determination on the assertion by the defendant and his/her defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The gist of the assertion is that the Defendant does not indicate the country of origin falsely, since he refers to all kinds of red powder used in various kinds of kimchi provided in a restaurant, namely, “kimchi: Mag-chi: Domestic acid, red powder: Domestic acid, and China.”

2. The following circumstances acknowledged by this Court based on the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court, i.e., distribution of kimchi, which the Defendant purchased from F and provided to customers, was domestically produced.