When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

The defendant is a person who is responsible for indicating the country of origin in the place of business while operating the food entertainment business in the B and the second floor in Jeonju-si.

No person who sells or provides agricultural and fishery products prescribed by Presidential Decree or the processed agricultural and fishery products thereof after cooking shall place a false place of origin labeling or place a mark likely to cause confusion as such.

Nevertheless, from November 3, 2017 to January 11, 2018, the Defendant purchased 191,250 Mos (137.7kg) of two parts manufactured from 2 parts manufacturing enterprises in Yansan-gu D in Yan-si, Jeonju-si to be the United States Congo (137.7kg).

From November 3, 2017 to January 16, 2018, the Defendant provided customers with F6 lines of 153 Mo 153 U.S. dollars purchased as above, and Cheong Director-General of Cheong-General of 371 Mo Mago (5,445,000 won) with the country of origin in the country of origin on the indication board of origin in the place of business, and used the country of origin in the place of business 10% for the C only domestic country of 10%.

“A false representation was made.”

Accordingly, the Defendant violated the Act on Origin Labeling of Agricultural and Fishery Products.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. A criminal investigation report (report accompanied by details of supply by two imported products), and a criminal investigation report (specific details of quantity in violation);

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to photographs at each detection site;

1. Article 14 (1) and Article 6 (2) 1 of the Act on Origin Labeling of Agricultural and Fishery Products and Selection of fines concerning facts constituting an offense, and Articles 14 (2) 1 and 6 (2) 1 of the same Act;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. In extenuating circumstances, such as the time of violation of the reason for the sentencing of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act and the fact that the number of sales therefrom is not significant, considering the fact that the Defendant recognized the facts charged in the instant case and expressed his intention of reflect on the mistake thereof, as well as the fact that there was no punishment imposed once due to traffic crimes in 2011, respectively, and taking into account all other circumstances prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act.