Whether the maintenance constitutes "foods subject to permission for food processing business prescribed by the Food Sanitation Act" (affirmative)

The maintenance is not a finished product, but a product supplied to another food company is manufactured as a finished product such as marin, shocking, etc. by refining it in the company and adding added material to it. Thus, this constitutes an intermediate product as stipulated in Article 9, Article 30 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Food Sanitation Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 12000 of Nov. 11, 1986). The maintenance is inappropriate for food as it is does not mean that it is not a food, but rather it is sufficient that a food has the character of food that people can drink and that it is sufficient for food as one of the food under the Enforcement Decree of the same Act.

Articles 2, 22, and 23 of the former Food Sanitation Act, Article 9 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act

Defendant 1 and one other

Defendants and Prosecutor

Incheon District Court (85 High Court Decision 228) of the first instance trial

All appeals by the Defendants and the Prosecutor are dismissed.

The gist of the defendants' grounds for appeal is as follows: First, since the defendants 1 did not go through the fixed food processing process and it is not an intermediate product prescribed in Article 9 subparag. 30 of the Enforcement Decree of the Food Sanitation Act, the court below found the defendants guilty of violating the law that affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding that this product constitutes an intermediate product; thus, the above defendants should be viewed as food for manufacturing and processing purposes and be subject to unfair permission for manufacturing and processing of ice products using ices extracted from crude oil as raw materials. However, since ice production and ice production were made from ice, it is not necessary for the above defendants to obtain permission for manufacturing and processing of ice food without any justifiable reasons; second, it is necessary to obtain permission for manufacturing and processing of ice food for manufacturing and processing purposes; second, it is not necessary to obtain permission for manufacturing and processing of ice products from the above public officials; second, it is not necessary to obtain permission for manufacturing and processing of ice products from the above public officials; second, it is not necessary to obtain permission for manufacturing and processing food products from the above public officials.

According to Article 21(1) and Article 22(1) of the Food Sanitation Act, a person who intends to conduct a business as prescribed by the Presidential Decree among manufacturing and processing business of food or additives shall obtain permission from the Minister of Health and Welfare, the Mayor of Seoul Special Metropolitan City, the Mayor of Metropolitan City, or the Do governor under the conditions as prescribed by the Presidential Decree. Article 9 subparag. 30 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 11409 of Apr. 13, 1984), one of the types of business under Article 22 of the same Act at the time of the crime, is to manufacture food materials that can be consumed by simply processing by extracting, crushing and mixing food materials, or to use them in manufacturing and cooking food products. The reason why Defendant 1’s finished products are not manufactured by this case, but to maintain the nature of food products that are not manufactured by this case’s finished products is clearly suitable for manufacturing food products by adding them to this case’s intermediate food products.

Furthermore, the reason that the goods similar to the maintenance of the case are not treated as food does not necessarily obstruct the maintenance of the case as food, and the Nap or ice acid is not itself food, and there is no reason that the manufacturing process of sun-dried salt is not a food, so there is no problem of permission. As to the manufacturing of fish oil, it is necessary to grant permission to the Administrator of the Fisheries Office in accordance with Article 44(1) of the Fisheries Act and Article 45(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, as well as permission under the Food Sanitation Act. While maintaining the import of fish, the general maintenance of the goods will also be subject to import permission as food as well as the fixed maintenance imported for processing it as food for the purpose of processing it as food, it is erroneous, and therefore, the maintenance of this case is not a food. Therefore, the first head of the Defendants' first head of the liquor is not justified.

Next, the lower court’s rejection of the Defendants’ assertion as to legal error is deemed reasonable, and the second point of the grounds for appeal is without merit, and the lower court’s sentence is also appropriate in light of the sentencing conditions indicated in the instant case. Therefore, there is no ground for appeal by the Defendants and the Prosecutor as to this point.

Therefore, all appeals filed by the Defendants and the prosecutor are without merit, and the above appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judge Lee Young-young (Presiding Judge)