[보건범죄단속에관한특별조치법위반,공업배치법위반][집38(1)형,680;공1990.6.1.(873),1092]
(a) Whether the raw materials maintained as food raw materials are included in the items subject to permission for food processing business (affirmative);
(b) Permission to manufacture raw materials supplied to food processing companies (affirmative)
A. "Intermediate products" under Articles 23(1) and 22(1) of the former Food Sanitation Act (amended by Act No. 3823, May 10, 1986) and Article 9(1)30 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 11717, Jun. 29, 1985; Presidential Decree No. 12000, Nov. 11, 1986; Presidential Decree No. 12000) refers to products not manufactured for the purpose of manufacturing, cooking, etc. food materials are not finished products. As such, food materials are not manufactured for the purpose of manufacturing, cooking, etc., so long as they are merely an intermediate product, it is not necessary to food processing business. Although crude oil is not suitable for food, if it is not suitable for food production, it includes the criteria for manufacturing food products and the manufacturing process of food products under Article 1 of the Food Sanitation Act.
(b) Even if a raw milk manufacturer supplies raw milk to a processing company with permission for a food processing business, not to supply raw milk to the food company immediately, it may not be said that the permission for the manufacture of such raw milk is unnecessary.
A.B. Article 23(1) and Article 22(1) of the former Food Sanitation Act (amended by Act No. 3823, May 10, 1986); Article 9(1)30 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Food Sanitation Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 11717, Jun. 29, 1985; Presidential Decree No. 12000, Nov. 11, 1986)
A. Supreme Court Decision 81Do80 decided Oct. 13, 1981; 88Do123 decided Dec. 27, 1988
Defendant 1 and eight others
Defendants
Attorneys Hong Hong-soo et al. and four others
Seoul High Court Decision 85No3502, 89No2112 (Consolidated) Decided June 9, 198
All of the defendants' appeals are dismissed.
As to the Grounds of Appeal:
According to Articles 23(1) and 22(1) of the former Food Sanitation Act (amended by Act No. 3823, May 10, 1986) and Article 9(1)30 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 11717, Jun. 29, 1985; Presidential Decree No. 12000, Nov. 11, 1986; hereinafter “Intermediate products used for the manufacture, cooking, etc. of other food”) which were in force at the time of the occurrence of the instant case, those who wish to carry on the manufacturing business are required to obtain permission for food processing business. Accordingly, it is not finished products that were manufactured for the purpose of the manufacture, cooking, etc. of food, and thus, it is not appropriate to obtain permission for food processing business 180,000,000 won or more, and thus, it is not appropriate to obtain permission for food processing business 18,000,000 won.
In addition, the court below's decision to the purport that even if the defendants' act was mistaken for not being a crime under the law due to the reasons alleged in the above case, it cannot be justified to justify the above mistake as well as just a legal site. It also does not err in the misapprehension of legal principles, such as the theory of lawsuit (defense counsel's subordinate part, leap, Kim Jong-nam, and the tear-do), and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles, such as insufficient deliberation, and even if defendant 2 delivered the manufactured raw milk to a processing company permitted by the food processing business, as alleged in the above, it is not necessary to permit the manufacture of raw milk, and thus, it is not possible to accept the theory of lawsuit contrary to this, since the defendant 3 purchased it with the knowledge that the raw milk of the maintenance of this case was manufactured without permission, and sold it to the processing company permitted by the food processing business, and thus, it cannot be accepted (the defendant 3).
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 Kim Yong-ju (Presiding Justice)