The Defendants are not guilty.

A. misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles

The finished products produced domestically by importing parts or semi-finished goods are not imported goods but domestic production products, and they do not have the duty to indicate the origin under Article 23 of the Foreign Trade Act. Defendant 1 does not have the duty to indicate the origin. Defendant 1, in this case, attached labels indicating “Hand Craft Bloloth Froth Froths ss Vinishing in Korea” with labels indicating “Korea.” Furthermore, in the case of domestic products using imported parts or components, the goods in tariff classification different from the tariff classification of imported materials (the HS 6 unit criteria) are produced, and the import price of imported materials is deducted from the total manufacturing cost of the goods in question, if the total manufacturing cost of the goods in question is more than 51% of the total manufacturing cost of the goods in question, and Defendant 1 does not have the duty to indicate the origin under Article 23 of the Foreign Trade Act, and Defendant 1 did not have the duty to mark the origin of the goods in question, and thus, the court below found the Defendants guilty or found the above error in the above legal principles.

B. The assertion of unfair sentencing

Even if each of the facts charged of this case is found guilty, the sentence of the court below (the fine 1,500,000 won by each of the defendants) is too unreasonable in light of the various circumstances of this case, such as the fact that the defendants took a heavy interest or did not inflict any damage on the consumers due to the instant case, and there is no criminal record against the defendant 1.

2. Summary of the facts charged in the instant case and judgment of the lower court

The summary of the facts charged of this case is that Defendant 1 is the representative of Defendant 2 Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant 2”) who is the Do and retail company, and Defendant 2 Co., Ltd. established its head office in Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan City, etc. (hereinafter omitted) and indicated the country of origin on goods subject to origin labeling, and Defendant 1 knew that no act of impairing or changing the country of origin should be committed, Defendant 1 purchased 561 points in the total of Korea imported by the Do and the Do and retail company, and sold them on the Internet shopping mall of the above company, including Jmall.com, and sold them on the Internet shopping mall of the above company, and found Defendant 2 to be guilty of the above act of damaging the country of origin by Defendant 2, including Defendant 2, Defendant 2, Defendant 3, and Defendant 2, Defendant 5, Defendant 2, Defendant 2, and Defendant 3, Defendant 2, Defendant 2, Defendant 2, and Defendant 3, Defendant 2, Defendant 2, Defendant 5, and Defendant 3, Defendant 2, Defendant 2.

3. Judgment of the court below

(a) Facts of recognition;

According to the records of this case, Defendant 1, as the representative director of Defendant 2, who mainly engages in the wholesale and retail business of musical instruments, is operating the above company; Defendant 1 imported products in a state where it is attached to the body of her in China (hereinafter “the semi-finished products of this case”); sold them to Defendant 1; Defendant 1 purchased from Mar. 18, 2003 to Mar. 23, 2004 the above 561 (hereinafter “this case”) from among the above her purchases from the U.S. Mar. 18, 200 to Mar. 23, 2004, Defendant 1 stated that the above her customs classification was 920-100, and Defendant 1’s MAF No. 3550, Oct. 10, 2000, Defendant 1 stated that the above MAV No No. 3550, Dec. 14, 2005

B. Defendants’ assertion

The Defendants argued to the effect that even if the Defendants did not have the obligation to indicate the place of origin on the instant loan from the original judgment to the original judgment, or even if they had the obligation to indicate the place of origin, Defendant 1 did not have committed an act of impairing the place of origin, and further, the origin of the instant loan shall be deemed Korea.

C. Relevant statutes

Attached Form 3 shall be as listed in attached Table 3.

D. Determination as to the existence of the obligation to indicate the origin

Article 23 of the Foreign Trade Act provides that a person who intends to export or import goods subject to the indication of origin shall place a mark of origin on such goods. Article 55 (3) 2 of the same Act provides that no trader or distributor of goods, etc. shall impair or modify the indication of origin, and Article 55 (7) of the same Act provides that a person who violates the above obligations shall punish the person who damages or alters the indication of origin of the goods in question by carrying out simple processing activities on the imported goods shall place the initial place of origin on the processed goods. Article 6-2-5 of the Foreign Trade Management Act provides that a person shall place the initial place of origin on the goods in question, etc. which are performed simple processing activities in the Republic of Korea. Article 55 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Foreign Trade Act provides that the person shall place a mark of origin on the goods in question, etc. whose purpose of origin is to prevent any harm to the foreign goods in the process of producing, manufacturing and processing the goods in question, and that the State shall provide more than two foreign goods in the process of producing and exporting goods, etc.

Examining the legislative intent and relevant provisions of the Foreign Trade Act, if goods produced in the Republic of Korea and distributed and sold in the Republic of Korea using imported materials have not been substantially modified (i.e., where two or more countries are involved in the process of production, manufacture, and processing), the imported goods are subject to marking of origin in accordance with the said provisions.

Therefore, as seen above, Defendant 1, as well as Defendant 1, has a duty to place a mark of origin on a seller of the semi-finished product produced in China through additional processing in Korea as seen above (amended by the Foreign Trade Act No. 6977 of September 29, 2003, newly established Article 24-2 of the Foreign Trade Act on the criteria for determining the origin of domestic products using imported raw materials, and accordingly, the foreign trade management rules were amended on January 14, 2005, to establish Article 6-2-5(4) as to the method of indicating the origin of goods which were produced in China and conducted simple processing activities after importation of imported raw materials, and Article 6-3-1-2 was newly established on the criteria for determining the origin (see attached Table 3). It is more specific that Korea’s new provision on the criteria for determining the origin of goods is no more than that of goods manufactured in Korea and its new provision on the criteria for determining the import price of goods that is no more than that of goods manufactured in Korea.

E. Determination as to the act of impairing origin

However, the burden of proving the facts charged in a criminal trial lies on the prosecutor, and the conviction of guilt must be based on the evidence with probative value that makes the judge feel true to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt. Thus, if there is no such evidence, even if there is doubt as to the defendant's guilt, it shall be determined with the benefit of the defendant (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Do735, Apr. 27, 2006, etc.).

The facts of this case are as follows: (a) it was produced in China through additional assembly and processing in Korea; and (b) it is concluded that Defendant 1’s body attached to the Bain in the same manner as indicated in the attached Table 2 (the body of this case is interpreted to the effect that it is produced in the Republic of Korea, and its luminous work is completed in Korea) is indicated in English; (c) Defendant 1 indicated an indication as to the Bain by attaching the above labeling to the effect that it does not constitute a legitimate indication of origin as indicated in the attached Table 3; (d) it is difficult to find out that the indication as indicated in the Ba does not constitute a false indication of origin as indicated in the attached Table 1 in view of the fact that there is no doubt that Defendant 1’s final indication of origin would not be easily readable by the final purchaser; and (e) it is difficult to find out the content of the MA No. 2 in light of the content of the MA No. 1’s domestic content that it is difficult to see that it would be easily recognizable by its final purchaser.

F. Sub-decision

Therefore, even though the facts charged against the Defendants constitute a case where there is no proof of facts of crime, the court below found them guilty under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and there is an error of law affecting the conclusion of the judgment. Thus, the defendants' assertion is with merit.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, since the defendants' appeal is well-grounded, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the following judgment is rendered again after pleading.

The summary of the facts charged against the Defendants is as shown in paragraph (2) above, which constitutes a case where there is no proof of crime as stated in paragraph (3) E of the above 3, and thus, it is so decided as per Disposition by the decision of not guilty on the Defendants under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

[Attachment Foreign Trade Act and Enforcement Decree of the Foreign Trade Act omitted, such as a list of crimes of law, etc.]

Judges Kim Jong-dae (Presiding Judge)