beta
Text
All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. In light of the overall sentencing conditions of Defendant A, the sentence of the lower court (one year of imprisonment and a fine of 15 million won, a suspended sentence of two years, and confiscation) is too unreasonable.
B. In light of the overall sentencing conditions of Defendant B, the sentence of the lower court (the imprisonment of eight months and fine of ten million won, the suspension of execution of two years, and the forfeiture) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination on the grounds for appeal
A. Defendant A recognizes all of the crimes of this case and is in depth divided, Defendant A does not want the punishment of Defendant A by mutual consent with the victim of the fraud of this case, Defendant A did not have any record of punishment for the same crime, and Defendant A did not have any record of punishment for the same crime, and Defendant A did not have any record of punishment other than punishment for a fine once.
However, the crime of violating the Food Sanitation Act was committed by Defendant A and the co-defendant C of the court below for the purpose of selling or selling in China to the victim G corporation after the purchase of the domestic source oil for which Defendant A did not file an import declaration from Defendant B and the co-defendant C of the court below. The crime of violating the Food Sanitation Act was committed in light of the fact that the secret source oil whose safety was not verified brings about danger to public health and disturbed sound food distribution order by selling to general consumers, and that the crime and the crime were not good, and that the secret source oil sold by Defendant A was a large quantity of 14,025 km, and other sentencing conditions specified in Article 51 of the Criminal Act, such as Defendant A’s age, character and behavior, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, the circumstances after the crime, etc., are considered to be too unreasonable. Thus, Defendant A’s assertion of unfair sentencing is without merit.
B. Defendant B recognized all the crimes of this case, and recognized the favorable circumstances, such as the fact that Defendant B was in depth divided, and that Defendant B had no record of punishment heavier than a fine, are recognized.
However, this case.