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

The Defendant is a cook of a group meal facility of D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “instant meal facility”) located in Gyeongbuk-gun, Gyeongbuk-gun, Inc.

No person who sells or provides agricultural and fishery products or the processed products thereof after cooking shall make a false indication of the place of origin or commit an act likely to cause confusion as such.

Nevertheless, from October 2015 to March 11, 2016, the Defendant indicated the instant meal service table as “kimchi-domestic products” in the meal service table at the instant meal service center, and provided approximately 20 kmg of kimchi manufactured with Chinese red powder powder for one week for the purpose of supporting employees’ meal service.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Investigation report (verification of the fact of violation of the origin of integrated food by a distribution kimchi supplier, and investigation into the light of places where comprehensive food distribution products are purchased).

1. Evidence photographs and copies of a certificate of report on the establishment and operation of a group meal facility [1) The defendant and defense counsel cannot be deemed as a person who establishes and operates a group meal facility, and thus does not bear an obligation to indicate the country of origin, and 2) even if the defendant is obliged to indicate the country of origin.

The Defendant asserts to the effect that the Kimchi supplied to the instant meal facilities was not aware of the fact that Kimchi was manufactured as red molds of China.

First of all, in light of the purport of the arguments in the above arguments, the school meal service facility of this case was operated as a principal assistant to the defendant and one principal. However, since the defendant is in charge of the food group management of the school meal service facility of this case, the main management of the kitchen, the order of food materials and inspection, and other overall management affairs within the kitchen, it can be deemed that the defendant is a person who operates the school meal service of this case, the defendant bears the duty to indicate the country of origin, and therefore, the above claim 1 of the defendant is rejected.

Next, as to the assertion of the foregoing paragraph (2), the Defendant is a person who operates the instant meal facility, as seen earlier.