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

The defendant is a person who operates a "D cafeteria" which is a general restaurant with a size of 90.94 square meters in Osan-si (C building 3 floors).

Any person who sells or provides livestock products after cooking them pursuant to the Act on Origin Labeling of Agricultural and Fishery Products and any person who sells or provides rice and kimchi after cooking them shall not make a false indication, such as the place of origin, or make a false indication that may cause confusion therewith.

Nevertheless, during the period from January 13, 2014 to March 15, 2014, the Defendant purchased KRW 50km (10km) from the “F Distribution” located in Osan-si, for five times in total, for a period from January 13, 2014 to March 15, 2014, and supplied KRW 60,00,00 in China to customers who visited the restaurant, during the period from January 13, 2014 to March 17, 2014, the Defendant indicated the place of origin on the wall of the restaurant that “all food materials of the food materials of the business establishment other than Korea are used only in Korea,” and stored at the wall of the restaurant in order to give back to customers the 5 km-g g of Korean traditional cabchi in Korea.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. A copy of business report certificate and business registration certificate;

1. Each investigation report (the detection of "D cafeteria" by an enterprise violating the origin labeling mark, the identification of false evidence of origin, and the verification of the domestic quantity and quantity of purchase of Korean excursionchi among "D cafeteria" shall apply to the statutes;

1. Article 15 of the Act on Origin Labeling of Agricultural and Fishery Products and Articles 6 (2) 1 of the Act on Origin Labeling of Agricultural and Fishery Products and Selection of fines for criminal facts;

1. Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. Partial reduction of fines prescribed by the summary order in consideration of the fact that the defendant's reason for sentencing under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act is against the defendant, and there is no record of punishment for the crime, etc.