수입식품안전관리특별법위반등
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendants shall be punished by a fine of KRW 5,000,000.
Defendant
A The above fine shall be imposed.
1. The decision of the court below on the gist of the grounds for appeal is too unreasonable (for defendant A: 6 months of imprisonment and 8 million won of fine, 2 years of suspended sentence of imprisonment, and 8 million won of fine: defendant B: 8 million won of fine).
2. Under the judgment, in full view of the following various sentencing conditions, including Defendant A’s age, sexual conduct, environment, family relationship, motive and consequence of the crime, etc., the sentence imposed by the court below against the Defendants is too unreasonable, and thus, the Defendants’ argument in the sentencing is with merit.
① The Defendants recognized all of the instant crimes, and Defendant A does not repeat again.
There are many things.
On the other hand, Defendant A has no record of criminal punishment except for the punishment of a fine once due to driving of alcohol.
② In importing German diesel products, there was a mistake in which the Defendants made a different indication of “g”, which is the added materials, of the “f” and “G” products. However, the above colors are extracted from plants, and are not in human body.
Accordingly, after the instant case, the same parallel importers filed an application for registration with the Food and Drug Safety Agency as food additives to designate “fluorine, not a black fluor, derived from black fluor,” and the Food and Drug Safety Agency accepted the said application for registration and designated “fluoring fluoring fluor of black fluor” as food additives by means of an administrative notice on the Food and Drug Safety Agency Notice No. 2016-781 on December 27, 2016.
③ During the investigation process of the instant case, the Defendants immediately taken measures to recover products distributed in the Republic of Korea, and even if they were imported in the Republic of Korea and disposed of the entire quantity of products in the atmosphere for delivery, the Defendants did not yet import, but revoked a purchase contract on the quantity of products already concluded for import.
3. Conclusion, the Defendants’ conclusion is as follows.