[보건범죄단속에관한특별조치법위반][공1989.9.15.(856),1317]
Whether the court shall follow the inspection results of an inspection institution prescribed in Article 7 of the Enforcement Decree of the former Food Sanitation Act in recognizing the criminal facts of violation of the former Food Sanitation Act (wholly amended by Act No. 3832, May 10, 1986) (negative)
Article 7 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Food Sanitation Act (wholly amended by Act No. 3923, May 10, 1986) which provides for the National Health Institute and the Health Research Institute as an inspection institution under the Food Sanitation Act is merely that the business permission-granting authority under Article 23 of the same Act explicitly specifies the institution in the process to conduct product investigations, and it cannot be viewed that the court should follow the inspection results of the above inspection institution until the court recognizes the criminal facts of the violation of the Food Sanitation Act.
Article 12 of the former Food Sanitation Act (wholly amended by Act No. 3823, May 10, 1986); Article 7 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act; Article 308 of the Criminal Procedure Act
Defendant 1 and one other
Defendants
Attorneys Yong-jin et al. and one other
Seoul High Court Decision 86No3492 delivered on January 20, 1989
All appeals are dismissed.
The Defendants and their defense counsel (Korean)'s grounds of appeal are also examined.
1. Article 12 of the former Food Sanitation Act (wholly amended by Act No. 3823, May 10, 1986); Article 1, Article 2, and Article 7 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act stipulate the National Health Institute and the Health Institute as an inspection institution under the Food Sanitation Act; however, it is merely that the business authorities under Article 23 specified the procedures for conducting product inspections and that the court should follow the inspection results of the above inspection institution until it recognizes criminal facts of violating the Food Sanitation Act.
The judgment of the court below to the same purport is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the Food Sanitation Act, such as theory of lawsuit.
2. After examining the records of the case, it seems that there is no reason to suspect that each confession statement in the prosecutor's office and the court of first instance led to deception, or that there is a reason to suspect that it is false confession due to coercion, such as adviser, etc.
3. According to the evidence adopted by the court of first instance as cited by the court below, the facts constituting the crime against the defendants can be sufficiently recognized, and there is no error of law of misconception of facts due to violation of the rules of evidence, such as the theory of lawsuit, or there is no error of law.
4. In this case where a minor sentence is imposed against the Defendants more than 10 years of imprisonment, the reason that the amount of punishment is unreasonable is not a legitimate ground for appeal.
5. Therefore, all appeals by the Defendants are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.
Justices Yoon So-young (Presiding Justice)