식품위생법위반
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendant shall be punished by a fine of one million won.
The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The judgment of the court below that found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case, even though the Defendant did not keep freezing freezing of this case for the purpose of sale, is erroneous in the misunderstanding of facts.
B. The penalty of the lower judgment on the grounds of unreasonable sentencing (two million won of fine) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. The following circumstances are acknowledged according to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court and the first instance court as to the assertion of mistake of facts.
① The Defendant has continuously paid storage fees to keep the tending of this case in freezings (E).
② On November 9, 2013, after the expiration of the distribution period, the Defendant 10 boxes 10 boxes in food to the branch of Ha (the H representative of a stock company).
③ The Defendant changed to have kept tending until another waste is generated, when he disposes of food. However, the Defendant’s aforementioned change is difficult to believe, taking into account the following: (a) there is no evidence that there was no other waste generated during approximately two years from May 20, 2013, when he/she was waiting for the disposal of food until another waste is generated; (b) there is no evidence that there was no other waste generated during the period from May 20, 2013, when he/she was waiting for the disposal of food.
In light of the above circumstances, the judgment of the court below that found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case is sufficiently acceptable, and the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts against this is without merit.
B. In full view of the argument on unreasonable sentencing: (a) examining the argument on unfair sentencing; (b) the Defendant has no record of punishment for the same kind of crime; (c) the amount of tending that the Defendant kept in custody is not much much; and (d) the Defendant’s tending that the Defendant kept in custody at his own expense was discarded; (c) the Defendant’s age, family relationship; (d) background leading to the crime; and (e) other matters concerning the sentencing specified in the records and arguments of this case, the Defendant’s assertion is reasonable
3.