beta
무죄
(영문) 인천지법 2008. 4. 18. 선고 2007고정2571 판결

[식품위생법위반] 항소[각공2008상,1006]

Main Issues

In light of all the circumstances, the case holding that food import agency business in the form of electronic commerce through the Internet operated by the defendant is not included in the "distribution business of food, etc." requiring business report under the Food Sanitation

Summary of Judgment

The case holding that, after posting a detailed explanation (products explanation, post-use explanation, etc.) of the country's questions on organic food on the Internet site it opened, the defendant sent the settlement amount when he applied for the purchase of specific food items posted on the relevant website; the defendant found an overseas shopping mall in compliance with the customer's request and requested the customer to purchase the goods in his name and directly deliver the goods to the relevant customer (or the person designated by the purchaser). If the customer withdraws the above purchase application, the customer would be directly refunded from the overseas seller and the customer would be able to withdraw the above purchase application from the overseas seller without going through the defendant; the defendant would receive the import agency fee from the customer in the above transaction process; since the goods are delivered directly to the customer through delivery, the defendant could not hold a separate inventory of the goods or have no separate storage of the goods, the defendant should not report import agency business or food sales business under Article 7 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Food Sanitation Act.

[Reference Provisions]

Article 21(2) of the Food Sanitation Act and Article 7 subparag. 5(b) of the Enforcement Decree thereof

Escopics

Defendant

Prosecutor

Kim Su-hwan

Text

The defendant shall be innocent.

Reasons

1. Summary of the facts charged in this case

The defendant is a person operating an import-sale business type (including buying agency) using an Internet shopping mall in the name of "(trade name omitted)". A person who intends to operate an import-sale business such as food, etc. shall be equipped with facilities necessary for business and make a report to the Commissioner of the Korea Food and Drug Administration. However, from September 21, 2006 to February 21, 2007, he/she shall install an Internet homepage (htp://www/www.URL omitted.com) at the office located in the Seocheon-si Mancheon-si Modong (number number, building name omitted) without filing a report on import-sale business, such as food, etc. with the Commissioner of the Korea Food and Drug Administration. However, he/she shall alter imported food, such as 10,000 won per case, imported food, and sell imported food, such as 15th category 1,55th category 1,55th category 1,55th category 1,555.

2. Determination:

However, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to recognize that the defendant operated an import-sale business, such as food. Rather, the defendant's legal statement, the statement of the defendant in the first trial records, the statement of the witness in the fourth trial records, the statement of the non-indicted witness in the fourth trial records, and the investigation report (the accompanying report of copies of business related data) are combined. In other words, the defendant posted a notice of the country's detailed explanation on the Internet site (htp:/www.UR omitted.com) established by him/her, and it is difficult for the customer who visited the above site to transfer the payment amount when he/she applied for the purchase of the specific food items posted on the above site to the customer who did not directly import-distribution business (or the person designated by him/her). In light of the Food Sanitation Act, it is difficult for the customer to separately withdraw the import-distribution business from the customer who did not directly import-distribution business and directly import-distribution business to the customer, and it is difficult for the above customer to do so.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the above facts charged constitute a case where there is no proof of crime, and thus, the defendant is acquitted pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the

Judges Sung-ju