If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.

Any person shall manufacture, import, process, cook, prepare, or preserve foods or additives, the standards and specifications of which are determined, in accordance with the existing standards and specifications, and shall not sell foods or additives that fail to meet such standards and specifications, or manufacture, import, process, use, cook, cook, store, subdivide, transport, preserve or display such foods or additives for sale.

Nevertheless, from March 13, 2015 to June 7, 2017, the Defendant manufactured and sold approximately 54,655 macarbs worth 84,00,300 won in total by using red - - 4 coloring red 2 in which use is prohibited, inasmuch as the Defendant’s production of Macarbs, which is a sort of macarbs, at the point of “H” operated by the Defendant in Seongbuk-gu Seoul, from around March 13, 2015 to around June 7, 2017.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. A report on investigation (request for predetermined inspection and report on the result of inspection), products to be purchased and inspected, details of request for inspection of products, and reporting on the results of inspection of products (F-1, etc. 25);

1. Each protocol of seizure and the list of seizure;

1. Inquiries about sale by H Mua New;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to investigation reports (report on the current status of production/sale by Makanobul);

1. Subparagraph 1 of Article 95 of the Food Sanitation Act and Article 7 (4) of the same Act concerning facts constituting an offense, the selection of a fine;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. Article 48 (1) 1 of the Criminal Act to be confiscated;

1. Reasons for sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act;

1. Scope of applicable sentences under law: Fines of 50,000 to 50 million won;

2. Determination of sentence is disadvantageous to the fact that the sales volume of the product using the color of this case is not significant.

On the other hand, the defendant's use of the above color room for the purpose of economic benefits or the use of the above color room does not seem to have obtained economic benefits, and the defendant's perception of illegality cannot be seen as having been confirmed, and the color of this case is also among the fruits.