A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for five months, and by a fine of seven million won for Defendant B.

However, the defendant A.

1. No person who is liable to make a false indication of origin or to make an indication that may cause confusion as to the origin;

Nevertheless, from July 2012 to November 13, 2012, Defendant A made a false indication of the country of origin in Korea, even though he/she manufactured fluoral fluoral fluoral fluoric fluoric fluoric fluoric fluoric fluoric fluoric fluoric fluoric fluoric fluoric fluoric fluoric fluoric fluoric fluoric fluoric fluoric fluoric fluoric fluoric fluoric fluor fluor fluor fluor fluor fluor fluor fluor fluor fluor fluor fluor flu

2. Defendant B Co., Ltd. is a corporation whose purpose is the grain processing business and sales business.

As stated in paragraph (1), A, the representative of the defendant, marked the country of origin in Korea with regard to the business of the defendant corporation B at the date, place, as described in paragraph (1).

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ legal statement

1. A written corrective order;

1. Evidence photographs;

1. Investigation report (a detailed list of manufacturing and trading of flicking materials);

1. Investigation reports (report on attachment of sales volume to each seller of products);

1. A report on investigation (a report accompanied by details of purchase of imported rice for processing);

1. Application of the Act and subordinate statutes to a report on correction of an investigation;

1. Defendant A who has the relevant legal provisions and choice of punishment on the facts constituting an offense: Defendant B, a stock company with imprisonment under Articles 14 and 6 (1) 1 of the Act on Origin Labeling of Agricultural and Fishery Products, and Articles 17, 14 and 6 (1) 1 of the Act on Origin Labeling of Agricultural and Fishery Products;

1. The suspended execution (defendant A) Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act reflects the Defendant, and there is no criminal record for the same kind of crime, and the Defendant was unable to be fully supplied with domestically produced rice from March 2012 by the government, and the Defendant reached the instant crime and may be considered as the motive for the crime.