농수산물의원산지표시에관한법률위반
The Defendants are not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the Defendants is publicly announced.
1. Defendant A is the representative director of the agricultural company B located in Ansan-si, and Defendant B (hereinafter “Defendant Company”) is the company that produces consigned, etc. A. Defendant A is prohibited from falsely marking the country of origin or marking likely to cause confusion as the price of domestically processed rice used as a string material is so wide as to make mix imported acid with domestically processed rice and sell it as if it were used exclusively in the Republic of Korea. The Defendant had expressed his intent to sell it as if it were used only in the Republic of Korea. From October 1, 2014 to July 29, 2015, the Defendant indicated the Defendant Company’s place of business, “E,” “F,” and “G” in manufacturing “G” by mixing it with 2:1 in proportion to “G, E” and “10%”, “10%” and “10%”, “10%”, “10%”, “10%” and “10%”, “10%” and “10G”, respectively.
As a result, the Defendant falsely marked the origin of rice, which is a raw material such as glass, and sold a total of KRW 533,220,740.
B. The Defendant Company sold the total amount of KRW 533,220,740 by falsely marking the origin of rice, which is a raw material, such as galking, in relation to the duties of the Defendant Company, at the time, place, and at the same time and place as set forth in paragraph (1).
2. Determination
A. For the purpose of the instant galking and the instant balking, the Defendant used the entry and covered rice for the purpose of the production of the instant galking and the dynamic. Defendant A used both domestic rice for baled rice, and imported rice for the purpose of entry.
However, entry is limited to food additives according to the relevant laws and regulations.