(영문) 부산지방법원 2016.11.04 2016노2508 | 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) 부산지방법원 2016.11.04 2016노2508

농수산물의원산지표시에관한법률위반

Text

All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged, despite having supplied red powder powder with false country of origin marked on or before August 2013, 2013. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the facts charged. 2) Although the Defendant supplied red powder powder in Korea to M around 2009 or around 2010, and did not violate the country of origin labeling, the lower court convicted the Defendant of this part of the facts charged.

B. The Defendant asserts that the punishment of an unreasonable sentencing (two years of imprisonment, confiscation) of the lower judgment is too unreasonable, and the prosecutor is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court’s determination of the Prosecutor’s assertion of mistake and the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, it is difficult to deem that this part of the facts charged is proven to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt as to the facts charged.

Therefore, the prosecutor's argument of mistake is without merit.

1. There is no direct evidence to prove this part of the facts charged.

② From around 2012 or around 2013, N made a statement at an investigative agency to the effect that the Defendant was supplied with 100% of the Republic of Korea in China, and the Defendant was supplied with 100% of the Republic of Korea in the first instance around 2013. AS made a statement to the effect that the Defendant was supplied with 10% of the Republic of Korea in Korea.

③ Since April 18, 2014, there is a trading list stating that the item column of trading specification items is 100% domestically produced.

④ Around 2013, the Defendant stated that the Defendant received a unit price of KRW 7,00 from 200 won from 2012 to 2014 (Evidence No. 139, 2012; hereinafter “Evidence No. 139, 2013”) a unit price of KRW 7,000 (Evidence No. 139, 201; hereinafter “The unit price of the first half of the first half of the second half of the year in which the first half of the year in which the first half of the year in which the first half of the year in which the first half of the year in Korea was used as a mixture of domestic products.”

유사 판례

-대구지방법원 2020.01.17 2019노3889

-대구지방법원 의성지원 2019.09.19 2019고단125

-전주지방법원 2017.10.20 2017노1262

-서울고등법원 2014.10.30 2014노1554

-인천지방법원 2017.05.10 2017고단1367