(영문) 청주지방법원 2015.07.29 2015노119 | 리걸엔진

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 청주지방법원 2015.07.29 2015노119

농수산물의원산지표시에관한법률위반등

Text

All appeals filed by the Defendants and the Prosecutor are dismissed.

Reasons

1. The appellant who filed an appeal against Defendant A shall submit the appellate brief to the appellate court within 20 days from the date on which he/she received the notification of the receipt of the trial records (Article 361-3(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act), and if the appellate brief is not filed within the said period, the appellate court shall dismiss

(1) According to the records, the above defendant did not submit the appellate brief within 20 days (20 days from the date on which the above service was received) after being served with the notification of the receipt of the trial records by this court on March 10, 2015, and did not include the grounds for appeal in the petition of appeal, and even according to the records of this case, the grounds for ex officio examination cannot be found.

Therefore, this court should decide to dismiss the appeal of the above defendant in accordance with Article 361-4(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act. However, as long as the court decides on the appeal of the prosecutor and the defendant B, the dismissal of appeal shall not be decided separately and the judgment shall be sentenced together.

2. Summary of grounds for appeal filed by the public prosecutor and the defendant B;

A. As to Defendant B (i) mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles regarding fraud among the facts charged in the instant case, it is true that the Defendant falsely notified the origin of digging expenses and other food materials while operating the instant restaurant and received the food cost from the victims who are customers.

However, the amount of softs that the defendant falsely notified the place of origin is one of the most reflections provided to customers in the restaurant of this case, and the rest of the food materials was provided as incidental to the whole Mua New.

In addition, there is no fact that the defendant has used a trade name with the purport that he only handles domestic mining activities in the restaurant of this case, or has advertised to that effect.

Therefore, the defendant's act is limited to the extent that it can be acceptable in light of the general trade practice and good faith principle.

참조조문

-형사소송법 제361조의3 제1항

-형사소송법 제361조의4 제1항

유사 판례

-청주지방법원 2015.08.21 2015노242

-인천지방법원 2016.11.04 2016노1313

-창원지방법원 2015.02.12 2014노709

-수원지방법원 2016.10.28 2015노7573 (2)

-춘천지방법원 2019.11.29 2019노364