수입식품안전관리특별법위반
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Acquittal of the accused shall be acquitted.
1. The summary of the grounds of appeal is difficult to see that the basic facts are the same, and it is reasonable to see that the elements of the appeal and the prior case are substantive concurrent relations, not commercial concurrent relations, due to different legal interests from the elements of the appeal and protected legal interests. However, the judgment of the court below which dismissed the prosecution of this case on the ground that the
2. Determination
A. According to the records of ex officio determination, the Defendant was convicted of summary indictment for the crime of violating the Food Sanitation Act (hereinafter “pre-trial case”), and the Seoul Southern District Court rendered a judgment of innocence on January 25, 2018, and the Prosecutor appealed, but the Prosecutor’s appeal was dismissed on January 31, 2019. The Prosecutor appealed on April 25, 2019. However, the final appeal was dismissed on April 25, 2019, and the Defendant’s judgment became final and conclusive on the grounds that there was no evidence to prove that the Defendant was involved in the delivery of the aforementioned product, such as directly sending one product to the lessee or ordering the employee to deliver the said product.
The facts charged of the preceding case may be recognized that “the Minister of Food and Drug Safety may publicly announce matters concerning the indication of food for sale for the public health, and shall not sell, import, display, transport, or use for business purposes, unless they are indicated in compliance with the standards. The imported food according to the standards for the indication of food, etc. publicly notified by the Minister of Food and Drug Safety shall indicate the distribution period in Korean, along with the name of the product, the type of food, the name of the business, and the location of the business. Nevertheless, the Defendant sent one product to F of the change produced by the "E" of the relevant lease station without the Korean language indication around September 20, 2016 without the Korean language indication, and used it for business purposes.” Thus, the facts charged of the instant case and the facts charged of the preceding case