비료관리법위반
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
1. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence presented by the prosecutor to the gist of the grounds for appeal, although Defendant A, an employee of the agricultural cooperative of Defendant B, could fully recognize the fact that Defendant A did not mark a guarantee or supplied fertilizers without issuing a guarantee slip, the lower court acquitted all of the facts charged in this case. The lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine.
2. Determination
A. The summary of this part of the facts charged is the person who works as a factory for the head of the joint compost manufacturing site for the Korean Agricultural Cooperatives B in South F, and the defendant B is the fertilizer producer who operates the above joint compost manufacturing site.
1) Defendant A supplied 140 tons of fertilizers manufactured from the joint compost manufacturing place of the above B agricultural cooperative to G and H, etc. from October 9, 2014 to October 18, 2018 of the same year, and supplied the same to the spraying vehicle driven by I as construction machinery, without marking the name of the fertilizer, the quantity of the guarantee and the quality of the fertilizer, or without issuing a guarantee slip stating the above contents.
2) As indicated in paragraph (1) above, Defendant B, an employee of the Defendant’s agricultural cooperative, did not indicate the name of the fertilizer, the quantity of the guarantee, and the process specifications, or supplied fertilizers to G, H, etc. as a farmer without issuing a guarantee slip stating the above contents.
B. The lower court determined as follows based on the adopted evidence, i.e., ① supplied retirement expenses through I without directly visiting the retirement expenses of this case when receiving fertilizer from Defendant B Agricultural Cooperatives (hereinafter “Defendant BF”) during the period specified in the facts charged of this case, and ② visited the retirement expenses of this case from July 2014 to August 201.