If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 50,000 won.

A person who sells or provides agricultural and fishery products or the processed products thereof after cooking shall not place a false indication of the place of origin or place a mark likely to cause confusion therewith.

Nevertheless, the defendant

1. Although approximately 70 km ($ 2,030,000) supplied from Gyeong-gun, Gyeong-gun, to September 4, 2012, used domestic milch cows as a raw material, the product labeling board was sold approximately 50 km by falsely indicating it as domestic milch and Australian mountain as if it were used, and kept approximately 20 km for the purpose of selling approximately 20 km.

2. Although it was supplied as Australia for 165km (165,000 won) that was supplied from August 24, 2012 to September 4, 2012, it was supplied for 150 km (15,000 won). However, on the origin sign of the establishment, the establishment mark sold approximately 150 km (150 km) with a false indication of the domestic breabbbbed breab in the domestic breab, and the 15 kmg was kept for sale.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. The defendant's written confirmation;

1. Each report on investigation;

1. A copy of statement of transactions by period;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes governing violating establishments;

1. Relevant Article on criminal facts and Articles 15 and 6 (2) of the Act on Origin Labeling of Agricultural and Fishery Products (generally and by selecting fines);

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

1. Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides for the imposition of imprisonment with labor for not more than seven years or with a fine not exceeding KRW 100 million due to such violation in order to ensure the public interest, such as citizens' trust in food and safety, by inducing the accurate indication of the origin of agricultural and fishery products on the grounds of sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Provisional Payment Order.

However, considering that the defendant, as a franchise franchisee, has operated businesses such as origin labeling in accordance with the guidelines of the head office, the object of ultimate criticism is franchise's main owner.