beta
(영문) 창원지방법원 마산지원 2016.03.09 2015고정497

식품위생법위반

Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,000,000.

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

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant is a person who manufactures food under the trade name “E” located in Haan-gun, Gyeongnam-gun, and operates a public enterprise.

A food manufacturer shall not display or keep for sale products, the expiration date of which has passed, or use such products for public use.

However, from August 20, 2014 to February 11, 2015, the Defendant violated the code of practice by keeping salt 150 metrics (each 24 km) 3.6 tons for sale in the 2 freezing factory of the Korea Fisheries Co., Ltd. established in Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Busan from August 20, 2014 to February 20, 2015.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Some statements made to the accused prepared by the public prosecutor in the suspect examination protocol;

1. A report on internal investigation and an on-site confirmation photograph attached thereto;

1. A report on investigation (verification of types of business) and an attached business registration certificate;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to investigation reports ( telephone communications by public officials in charge);

1. Article 97 Subparag. 6 main sentence of Article 97 and Article 42 Subparag. 1 of the Food Sanitation Act (amended by Act No. 14022, Feb. 3, 2016) regarding criminal facts and the selective punishment

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

1. The Defendant and the defense counsel regarding the assertion of the Defendant and the defense counsel regarding Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act: (a) from around 2009, the Defendant conducted research and development to put the spoched fish into effect as a spoched fish; (b) as a result of multiple experiments, the Defendant came to know that the spoched fish was spoched as a spoched fish, if the spoched fish was stored in the spoched fish, and then came into effect at the spoch, then the spoched fish was spoched as a spoched fish. The Defendant did not have the purpose of selling the spoched fish of this case as part of research and development to put the spoched fish into effect as a spoched fish.

The argument is asserted.

However, according to the above evidence, the salted fish of this case was manufactured from Vietnam to August 20, 2012.