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

Around October 2, 2013, the Defendant kept a general restaurant cooking book with the trade name “E” located in Sinpo City D and 2, 2, 2, 2, 6, 6, 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 3, 2, 3, 3, 3, 3, 2,3, 2,3, 2,3, 2,3, 20

As a result, the Defendant stored raw materials and finished products whose expiration date has expired for cooking and selling purposes.

Summary of Evidence

1. The defendant's partial statement in the first protocol of trial;

1. Legal statement of witness F;

1. Application of statutes on site photographs;

1. Relevant Article of the Acts and subordinate statutes concerning facts constituting an offense, and Articles 97 subparagraph 6 and 44 (1) of the Food Sanitation Act which choose a penalty;

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

1. The defendant and his defense counsel on the assertion of the defendant and his defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act asserted that the crime is not committed since the defendant and his defense counsel tried to dispose of the products as stated in the judgment, not to keep them for cooking and selling purposes.

First, the witness F's legal statement, which is the main evidence supporting the facts charged, has credibility in light of the contents, attitudes and specific circumstances presented by the witness F, etc., and it is difficult to shoulder the credibility only by the circumstances or materials needed by the defendant.

In light of the circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court, the attitude of the defendant and employees, the packaging and storage status of food, etc., it is reasonable to view that the products, such as the records in the judgment, were stored for the purpose of cooking and selling.

Therefore, the defendant and defense counsel's arguments are not accepted.

Based on the old sentence (one million won of a fine) of the prosecutor with reasons for sentencing, the amount of fines for summary order shall be maintained in full view of various circumstances that form the conditions for sentencing specified in the arguments and records of this case based on the example of sentencing of the same kind of case.