From March 14, 2013 to May 27, 2013, the Defendant entered “Saccinic acid” in the main new plate in the business establishment, and made an indication that may cause confusion as to the origin by raising sales equivalent to KRW 7,146,00,00, by making a total of KRW 6,000,00 for a unit of 1,194 and preparing a unit of 1,194, using a saccinal aggregate.

2. Although the Defendant’s defense counsel and the Defendant’s defense counsel engaged in the same act as stated in the facts charged, they do not constitute the act of falsely or likely to cause confusion as to the origin under Article 6(2)1 of the Act on the Origin Labeling of Agricultural and Fishery Products (hereinafter “Act”), but merely violate the method of indicating the origin under Article 5(4) of the Act, and thus, they merely claim that the Defendant is subject to fines for negligence under Article 18 of the Act, not subject to criminal punishment.

3. Determination

A. Article 15 of the Act provides for punishing a person who violates Article 6(2)1 (the act of falsely indicating the country of origin or making a mark likely to cause confusion). Article 6(3) of the Act provides for the types of false labeling of the country of origin and labeling that may cause confusion under Article 6(2)1 of the Act, and Article 6(3) of the Act provides for the types of acts such as labeling of the country of origin and labeling that may cause confusion under Article 6(2)1 of the Act. Article 4 of the Enforcement Rule of the Act provides for the type thereof in attached Table 5 of the attached Table 5. Accordingly, any indication that is likely to cause confusion of the country of origin is marked in the indication column of the country of origin, but it is marked with a similar indication in other places, such as packing materials, sign, horse, publicity materials, etc.