Defendant

A does not pay the above fine.

Defendant

A is a person who actually runs the grain map and the grain wholesale and retail business under the trade name of agricultural corporation B (hereinafter “B”) in Nam-gu, Nam-gu, Nam-gu, Seoul. The defendant B is a corporation that actually runs the grain map and the grain wholesale and retail business for profit.

No grain processor or grain dealer shall make a false indication concerning the production year, quality, etc. of grain.

Nevertheless, on October 6, 2016, Defendant A purchased new-dong rice 3,089km as of October 6, 2016, which was marked as “6, the date of Do administration,” and then packages 104 of “F self-produced by using 2,089km from among them,” 1,680,000, and the remaining 56 (the estimated sale price of KRW 1,960,00) were sold in custody for sale, and indicated as the date of Do administration of grain as of October 13, 2016 and indicated otherwise.

As a result, Defendant A put a different indication on the date of Domination while selling rice purchased at large.

Defendant

B, Defendant A, the actual representative of Defendant B, indicated the date and time as above in relation to Defendant B’s work, differently from the facts.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. On-site photographs of the violating enterprise;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to investigation reports (the quantity in violation of the fixed date);

1. The Defendants: Article 32 subparag. 3 of the Grain Management Act and Article 20-3 subparag. 1 of the same Act (in the case of Defendant B’s criminal facts, adding Article 35 of the Grain Management Act), the Defendants’ selection of fines, etc.

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: Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act