logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 2016.09.29 2015고정1792
식품위생법위반
Text

The sentence of sentence against the defendant shall be suspended.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is a person who operates a task (trade name D) in Geumsan-gun C.

A food entertainment business operator shall not keep raw materials or finished products, the distribution period of which expires, for cooking and selling purposes, or use such materials or finished products for cooking food.

In this regard, an employee who may know the name of the above business establishment was kept for the purpose of cooking two color mons (distribution period: September 3, 2014), one green strest (distribution period: December 30, 2014) (one circulation period: January 15, 2015); one streg (distribution period: January 15, 2015); and two stregs (distribution period: July 11, 2015), and two stregs (distribution period: July 11, 2015).

Accordingly, the defendant's non-nameless employee committed the above violation in relation to the defendant's business.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of witness E;

1. A certificate;

1. Application of statutes on site photographs;

1. Article 10 of the relevant Act on criminal facts and Articles 100, 97 subparagraph 6, and 44 (1) of the Food Sanitation Act (Optional to punishment) of the same Act on the selective criminal facts;

1. Penalty fine of 500,000 won to be suspended;

1. Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act (100,000 won per day) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. Article 59(1) of the Criminal Code of the Suspension of Sentence (Article 59(1) of the Criminal Code (Article 59(1) of the Criminal Code (Article 59(1) of the Criminal Code provides that the Defendant has no criminal history on the part of the Defendant, the Defendant laid away the above products for which there was no other person, brought about the products that had been disposed of by properly disposing of and thrown away the wastes during the distribution period, and the Defendant’s employees, who had not yet been able to engage in the business at the time, had taken over the said products and had been placed in a main room once again, and became subject to regulation

arrow