축산물위생관리법위반
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
1. According to relevant provisions, such as the Sanitary Control of Livestock Products (misunderstanding of the facts) of the grounds for appeal, the Defendant shall set a distribution period so that the Defendant may prevent hazards and guarantee quality by taking into account the characteristics of the products, such as packaging materials, preservation conditions, processing methods, mixing ratio of raw materials, and other distribution conditions at the time of repackaging the packaged meat, such as the quality of packaging materials, storage of freezing or freezing, and shall not change the distribution period once.
As long as the Defendant attached labels on livestock products one time with the distribution deadline, it shall be deemed that the distribution deadline has been established for such livestock products, and the Defendant, even though the distribution deadline cannot be arbitrarily changed, arbitrarily added labels with the different distribution deadline on the existing labels, which constitute false indications on the distribution deadline.
In addition, Article 32 of the Livestock Products Sanitary Control Act is to punish the act of false labelling itself, and it does not require that “an act of false labelling and display for the purpose of sale.” Thus, even if the Defendant attached a label with a different time limit to livestock products at the preparation stage for re- packing, it constitutes “False labelling.”
2. The lower court found the Defendant not guilty on the ground that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone was insufficient to acknowledge the fact that the Defendant changed the packaging date and the distribution deadline as stated in the instant facts charged, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.
The above judgment of the court below is just in light of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the reasoning of the court below.
Therefore, the prosecutor's assertion that the judgment of the court below that acquitted the defendant of the facts charged of this case is erroneous is without merit (the notice of the processing standards and ingredients of livestock products that were in force at the time of the control of this case).