When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

The suspect is a person who operates a general restaurant in the name of "D" in the macro-city C.

No person who sells or provides agricultural and fishery products or the processed products thereof after cooking shall place a false indication of the place of origin or place a mark likely to cause confusion therewith.

Nevertheless, from April 5, 2014 to June 23, 2014, the Defendant: (a) sold Chinese food distribution headquarters (State food distribution headquarters) located in Ulsan-gun, Ulsan-gun; (b) sold Chinese food distribution kimchi 90km (90km) in Korea among the domestic products of an amount equivalent to KRW 9,000,000 in a market price of KRW 11,000 per 1,000,000, on nine occasions from Ulsan-gun-gun, Ulsan-gun, Ulsan-gun, the Defendant: (c) sold Chinese food distribution headquarters (main food); and (d) prepared and sold the Chinese food distribution trend in the wall from April 5, 2014 to June 24, 2014 as roasting materials to customers; and (d) found its business establishments using false Chinese food products as “domestic food products”; (d) sold Chinese food distribution headquarters in the wall-gun, the Defendant 10,000 won per 5,000 won per 787.7.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. A statement of detection;

1. Each investigation report (the delivery note, the details of the purchase of middle-sea domestic distribution kimchi, and the details of the quantity in violation);

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes to the complaint;

1. Articles 15 and 6 (2) 1 of the Act on Origin Labeling of Agricultural and Fishery Products and selection of fines concerning facts constituting a crime;

1. Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. The “competing” of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act regarding the Defendant and the defense counsel’s argument of the provisional payment order refers to not only the stocks but also the food that contains the stocks but also the stocks but also the stocks and the roasting materials.

Therefore, the defendant and the defense counsel's assertion against this cannot be accepted, since it is not a food but a roasting material, and it cannot be viewed that the duty to indicate the origin is not a counter-convenant.