Defendant

If A does not pay the above fine, it shall be 100.

Defendant

B is a corporation established for general restaurant business, mail order incidental thereto and electronic commerce transaction business, and the defendant A is a representative director of the above corporation.

1. No person who sells or provides agricultural and fishery products or the processed products thereof of Defendant A after cooking them shall place a false indication of origin;

Nevertheless, from February 20, 2020 to June 2, 2020, the Defendant issued a mail order to many unspecified customers on the Internet shopping mall “E” and indicated “speep (domestic)” in the column for indicating the origin of the sales site.

2. The Defendant B’s internal director, as described in paragraph 1, prepared and sold agricultural and fishery products or the processed products thereof, thereby falsely indicating the origin.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Evidence photographs of the place of origin violation (14 copies);

1. Application of statutes in Chapter I to the details of purchase in China;

1. Article 14 (1) and Article 6 (2) 1 of the Act on Origin Labeling of Agricultural and Fishery Products; Defendant A who selects a fine: Articles 17, 14 (1), and 6 (2) 1 of the Act on Origin Labeling of Agricultural and Fishery Products;

1. Defendant A to be detained in a workhouse: Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act;

1. Defendants of the provisional payment order: The Defendants’ grounds for sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act recognize all the facts charged in the instant case, and reflect their mistakes, and Defendant A has no record of criminal punishment, etc. are favorable to the Defendants.

However, the crime of falsely indicating the origin of food requires strict punishment that harms consumers' choice and trust and disturbs the sound distribution order of food, and the crime of this case is committed.