beta
Text
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendant
A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for ten months, and imprisonment with prison labor for six months.
except that this shall not apply.
Reasons
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) that the lower court sentenced the Defendants (in 10 months of imprisonment with prison labor and 6 months of imprisonment with prison labor) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. As Defendant A’s appeal operated a double-generation farm for a long time, the Defendant had been well aware that he was prohibited from using or selling double-generation auxiliary feed containing harmful substances. However, without undergoing regular import procedures, Defendant A’s strict punishment should be imposed upon considering the following: (a) mass import of “G” containing a large quantity of harmful substances from China to a large number of double-generation farmers; (b) detection of harmful elements in the double-generation farm that purchased G from Defendant G, and damage the social trust in food safety, which is directly connected to the health of the people; and (c) the Defendant obtained certification of eco-friendly environment by fraud or other wrongful means.
However, in full view of the facts that the Defendant recognized all of the instant offenses, and the Defendant appears to have never been aware of the fact that “G” contains insect elements as at the time of importing and selling them, and that the Defendant made efforts to compensate for damage, such as paying KRW 200 million, to the two-way farmers suffering monetary damage by discovering insect elements in the Gyeyang, among the two-way farmers that purchased “G” from the Defendant, for which the Defendant made efforts to compensate for damage, such as paying KRW 200 million, there is no history of criminal punishment heavier than the fine, and the Defendant appears to have been detained for about six months in the instant case, and the time of reflective and self-esteem was deemed to have been time during which he was able to take account of various factors such as the Defendant’s age, sex, family relationship, home environment, motive and means of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime.
Therefore, Defendant A’s appeal is justified.
B. Defendant.