beta
Text
The judgment below
Of them, the part against Defendant A shall be reversed.
Defendant
A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for one year.
except that this judgment.
Reasons
1. In light of the summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) of this case’s sentencing conditions, the sentence imposed by the court below against the Defendants (Defendant A: one year of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, community service work, 200 hours, Defendant B: fine 20 million won) is too unreasonable.
2. The instant case pertains to the case where the Defendants entrusted the HCCP to a business establishment that was designated as HACCP to which the HCCP was not designated, and made a false indication as if the Defendants were to obtain the HACCP certification on the H and I’s product packaging.
The lower court, based on the following facts: (a) under favorable circumstances, the Defendants did not confirm the sanitary problem in the manufacture of the Defendants’ food; (b) recognized all the crimes in the investigative agency and the court; (c) did not have any record of being punished for a crime related to the HACC certification; (b) under unfavorable circumstances; (c) the period of the crime was shorter; (d) Defendant A was under suspension of the execution two times a fine; and (e) was under suspension of the execution two times a fine in violation of the Food Sanitation Act in 196; and (e) had the record of being punished by a fine for a violation of the Food Sanitation Act in 196.
First, in full view of the above circumstances with regard to Defendant B, the lower court’s sentencing against Defendant B appears to have been appropriately determined by fully taking into account these factors, and it is difficult to find out other special circumstances to the extent that the lower court’s punishment is to be changed.
Ultimately, Defendant B’s argument of sentencing is without merit.
Next, the lower court’s sentence against Defendant A is somewhat weak, in consideration of the fact that Defendant A was receiving the diagnosis of Ginson’s disease in 2010 among the various circumstances recognized by the lower court.