Defendant 1 and 10 others

Prosecutor

Admonishment, transfer of a trial;

Attorney Choi Yoon-hwan

Chuncheon District Court Decision 2009Ma1011 Decided February 22, 2011

The part of the judgment below against the defendant 1, 2, 9, and 11 of the agricultural cooperatives shall be reversed.

Defendant 1 shall be punished by imprisonment for eight months, by imprisonment for two and nine months, and by a fine of ten thousand won for an agricultural cooperative; and a fine of ten thousand won for an agricultural cooperative.

However, with respect to defendants 2 and 9, the execution of each of the above punishments shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Defendant 11 ordered the above fine to be paid provisionally by the agricultural cooperative.

The prosecutor's appeal against Defendant 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 10 shall be dismissed in entirety.

Defendant 1, as the head of the agricultural cooperative (hereinafter “Defendant 11”), is the head of the cooperative of Defendant 11 (hereinafter “Defendant 11”) and manages the direct trade sales business (hereinafter “the direct trade business of this case”). Defendant 9, as the manager of the agricultural cooperative, manages the funds relating to the direct trade business of this case as the manager of the agricultural cooperative. Defendant 2, as the director of the agricultural cooperative, manages the purchase, transportation, and sales status of the head of the sales team in exclusive charge of the instant direct trade business, and Defendant 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 10, as the contractual worker of the instant direct trade business, operates the smooth direct trade sales place at the agricultural cooperative of Seoul and Seoul Metropolitan area, and Defendant 11 is a corporation incorporated for the purpose of selling agricultural and livestock products.

around July 2006, Defendant 1, 9, and 2 planned to operate the “direct trade sales business for Defendant 11 agricultural cooperatives” using the brand image of “brupted well” across the country; purchased and slaughtered rain from Hansung-gun farmers in the Crossing-gun area, which did not receive a stable management for Nonindicted 1 livestock; supplied it to Defendant 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 10, the head of the sales team having direct trade sales office in Seoul and the Seoul metropolitan area, and paid the remainder of the amount calculated by deducting equipment usage fees, such as approximately 10% of commission and transportation vehicles, from the sales proceeds, in the form of incentives to the above Defendants. After that, around January 2008, the direct trade sales office related to the direct trade sales business for Defendant 11 came to 76.

However, Defendant 1, 9, and 2 knew about 90% of the large-scale cattle born and raised in the Crossing-gun under the management of the livestock consultation with Nonindicted 1, and the small amount of cattle born and raised in the Crossing-gun is limited, so it is not possible to supply the cross-feass necessary for the above direct trade sales center properly.

Nevertheless, the above Defendants purchased and slaughtered Korea-Japan, which had been born and raised in other areas than the Crossing-gun, such as Gongju, from Non-Party 3, etc. in Korea-Japan, using the fact that the brand of “brut-do” is widely known across the country and the preference of consumers is higher than any other regions, and sold it to many unspecified consumers as if it were “brupted,” and conspired in order to increase sales volume, and to acquire profits accrued therefrom.

1. Defendant 1, 9, 2, and 3

Defendant 1, 9, and 2, from January 1, 2008 to February 28, 2009, purchased 64 ambling from Non-Party 3, etc. produced and raised in an area other than the breadth-gun, such as Chungcheongnam-gun, etc., and slaughtered it at ○○ enterprise located in the original city (hereinafter omitted) at any time upon Defendant 3’s request. Defendant 3, at △△△△△△△△△△△ Group located in Seoul Special Metropolitan City (hereinafter omitted), kept the former part of “I sell 1,00,000 won for 3,251 kilogram value at 5,000,000 from 12,000 to 30,000,000 won, and found an unspecified place of origin from 70,000,000 won by marking the total of 1,000 won to 70,000 won, which were born and sold in Seoul.

2. Defendant 1, 9, 2, and 4

Defendant 1, 9, and 2 purchased 72 miles from January 1, 2008 to February 28, 2009, which were produced and raised in an area other than the breadth-gun, such as Chuncheon from Non-Party 3, etc., at the request of Defendant 4 by slaughter at ○○ enterprise located in the original city (hereinafter omitted). Defendant 4, at the direct trade store located in Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter omitted), supplied approximately KRW 42 million in the market price of non-Party 4, 3,00,00 won in the other region-specific beef 2,52 kilograms, and found out its place of origin by marking the total of KRW 1,00,000 from Non-Party 7,000,000,000 from the market price of 1,000,0000 won in Seoul, and marking it from 7,000,000 won in the same way as that of Defendant 1, etc. to unspecified consumers.

3. Defendant 1, 9, 2, and 5

Defendant 1, 9, and 2 purchased 140 m30 m3,000,000 from January 1, 2008 to February 28, 2009 from Korea, by marking the 150 m40 m3,000 m3,000 m3,000 m3,000 m3,000 m3,000 m3,000 m3,000 m3,000 m3,000 m3,000 m3,000 m4,000 m3,00 m4,00 m3,00 m4,00 m4,00 m3,00 m4,00 m3,00 m4,00 m3,00 m4,00 m3,00 m3,00 m3,00 m3,00 m.

4. Defendant 1, 9, 2, and 6

Defendant 1, 9, and 2 purchased 100 m3,00 m3 from January 1, 2008 to February 28, 2009, from Korea-Japan brokerage from Non-Party 3, etc. to Non-Party 100 m3, which were produced and raised in an area other than the breadth-gun, such as Chuncheon. At the request of Defendant 6, Defendant 6 was slaughtered in ○○ enterprise located in the original city (hereinafter omitted) and supplied them from time to time at Non-Party 6, and Defendant 6, at Non-Party 5, Non-Party 5, 1,000, approximately KRW 4,00 m3,00 m3,00 m4,000 m3,000 m3,000 m3,000 m3,000 m3,000 m3,000 m3,000 m3,00 m1,00 m3.

5. Defendants 1, 9, 2, 7

Defendant 1, 9, and 2 purchased 85 miles from January 1, 2008 to February 28, 2009, which were produced and raised in an area other than the breadth-gun, such as Chuncheon, from Non-Party 3, etc., at the request of Defendant 7, after slaughter at ○○ enterprise located in the original city (hereinafter omitted) from January 1, 2008; Defendant 7, at the direct trade sale place of Non-Party 6, located in Gyeyang-gu, Incheon Metropolitan City (hereinafter omitted), provided the former part of “an amount of approximately KRW 70 million in the market price of other local beef at 3963 kilograms”, and sought from an unspecified number of consumers, indicating the total of KRW 150 million in the Seoul Metropolitan City and selling approximately 70 million in the same way as the Defendant 1, etc., marked out that it was born and slaughtered in an area other than the breadth-gun, and marked out 17050 kilograms or more in the same way as the Seoul Metropolitan City.

6. Defendant 1, 9, 2, and 8

Defendant 1, 9, and 2 purchased 12 horses from Korea-Japan intermediary from January 1, 2008 to February 28, 2009, which were produced and raised in an area other than the breadth-gun, such as Chuncheon, from Non-Party 3, etc., at the request of Defendant 8, Defendant 1, 9, and 2 slaughtered them at ○○ enterprise located in the original city (hereinafter omitted) and supplied them from time to time at the request of Defendant 8. Defendant 8 installed an electronic sign board at approximately KRW 17 million at the market price of other local beef 1,021 kilograms in Yangcheon-gu, Seoul (hereinafter omitted) in the direct trade store, and found out its place of sale at KRW 10,000,000,000 from 0,0000 won, with the total of KRW 10,000,000,000,0000,000,000 won, 25,000 kilograms from Seoul.

7. Defendant 1, 9, 2, 10

Defendant 1, 9, and 2 purchased 10 m3,00 from January 1, 2008 to September 22, 2008, one hundred m3, etc. produced and raised in an area other than Gyeonggi-do, such as Gyeonggi-do, and then slaughtered at ○○ enterprise located in the original city (hereinafter omitted) at the request of Defendant 10. Defendant 10 was frequently supplied at 7,00 m3,000 won from 70 m3,000 won from 70 m3,000,000 won from 1,021 m3,000 won from 70 m3,000 from 1,000,000 from 7,000 m3,000 from 1,000,000 from 7,000 m47,000 m3,000 m3,000 m3,00.

8. Defendant 11

Defendant 11, the representative of the agricultural cooperative from January 1, 2008 to February 28, 2009, Defendant 1, Defendant 1, the representative of the agricultural cooperative from January 1 to February 11, 2009, slaughtered and sold approximately KRW 95,17 kilograms of beef to unspecified consumers, with a false origin of origin, and acquired approximately KRW 13,5730,000,00 of the commission for the sales proceeds.

1. Presumption doctrine

The term "production" under Article 2 subparagraph 6 of the former Agricultural Products Quality Control Act (amended by Act No. 9667 of May 8, 2009, hereinafter referred to as the "Act"), which is the basis norm for the origin of livestock products, refers to a series of production activities, such as birth, raising, and slaughter of cattle, and as long as specific standards for the production activities of domestic livestock products have not been established by the Enforcement Decree or the rules delegated by the Act, it may also be indicated as the origin of livestock products.

2. Summary of the judgment of innocence

Korea-Japan sold by the Defendants was born and raised in other areas, at least 20 days, from the Crossing-gun adjacent to the Crossing-gun, and was slaughtered in the original city near the Crossing-gun. Although Nonindicted 3, etc. purchased Chinese rain in other areas and raised for about 20 days from the Crossing-gun, and immediately slaughtered it. The purpose of raising for about 20 days was to recover the body reduced in the course of the movement of the cattle. However, even if the short-term raising for recovery of the body, it is sufficiently possible to slaughter the cattle whose body weight has decreased, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the short-term raising falls under part of the slaughter-gun as a matter of course.

나아가 이러한 행위를 도축의 일부로 본다고 하더라도, 피고인들이 판매한 소의 횡성군에서의 사육기간이 20일∽20개월의 다양한 기간이고, 그 중 20일 정도 사육된 소의 구체적인 수량을 특정할 수도 없다.

If so, Korea-Japan sold by the Defendants was conducted in a different area, but some of the remaining breedings were conducted in the Crossing. In such a case, it cannot be recognized as limited to the single area of “the place of birth” or “the place of birth and the place of breeding,” and as long as part of the defendants were raised in the Crossing-gun, it cannot be concluded that it was not produced in the Crossing-gun in a situation where the domestic standards for the conversion of the country of origin can be seen as the place of origin if it were raised for a certain period of time without establishing the standards for the conversion of the country of origin.

Therefore, the defendants' act of indicating the country of origin of the livestock products is not considered as a false mark of origin with regard to the Chinese characters stated in the facts charged in the sale.

1. Legal principles

Although the term "place of origin of livestock products" under Article 2 subparagraph 6 of the Act refers to the place of origin of cattle, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles to the effect that the place of cattle breeding and guidance for slaughter may be the place of origin of cattle breeding.

2. misunderstanding of facts;

피고인들이 다른 지역에서 출생·사육된 소를 횡성군으로 가지고 와 도축 직전에 횡성군에서 보관한 기간이 불과 2∽3개월에도 못 미치는 단기간임에도 불구하고, 원심은 피고인들이 다른 지역에서 들여온 소를 횡성군에서 20일∽20개월의 장기간 동안 사육하다가 그러한 소를 도축한 것이라고 사실을 오인하였다.

1. Relevant provisions;

【former Agricultural Products Quality Control Act (amended by Act No. 9667 of May 8, 2009)】

Article 1 (Purpose)

The purpose of this Act is to contribute to the increase of the income of farmers and the protection of consumers by enhancing the commercial quality of agricultural products and encouraging fair trade through proper quality control of agricultural products.

Article 2 (Definitions)

The definitions of terms used in this Act shall be as follows:

1. The term "agricultural products" means unprocessed agricultural products, forest products (excluding stone and aggregate; hereinafter the same shall apply), livestock products and other products as prescribed by the Presidential Decree in an unprocessed state;

6. The term “place of origin” means the state or region in which the agricultural products are produced or collected; and

Article 15 (Indication of Place of Origin)

(1) The Minister for Food, Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries shall have a person who sells or processes agricultural products and processed agricultural products indicate the country of origin, where it is prescribed by Presidential Decree as necessary for establishing distribution order.

(2) A person who sells or processes the agricultural products or processed agricultural products which have the place of origin indicated pursuant to the provisions of paragraph (1) shall indicate the place of origin on the raw materials of the relevant agricultural products and processed agricultural products.

(3) Matters necessary for items subject to indication of origin, methods of indication, criteria for determining origin, etc. under paragraph (1) shall be prescribed by Presidential Decree.

Article 17 (Prohibition of False Indications, etc.)

(1) No person who sells or processes agricultural products or processed agricultural products subject to the labeling of the place of origin pursuant to Articles 15 (1) and 16 (1) or who sells agricultural products subject to the labeling of genetically modified agricultural products shall do any of the following acts:

1. An act of falsely marking the place of origin or genetically modified agricultural products, or making an indication that is likely to cause any confusion as to it;

3. Selling agricultural products or processed agricultural products labeled as the place of origin disguised, or storing or displaying such products for sale, mixed with other agricultural products or processed agricultural products labeled as the place of origin;

Article 34-2 (Penal Provisions)

Any person who violates the provisions of Article 17 (1) shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than seven years or by a fine not exceeding 100 million won, or both.

Article 37 (Joint Penal Provisions)

When the representative of a corporation, or an agent, employee or other servant of a corporation or an individual commits an offence under Article 34-2, 35 or 36 in connection with the business of the corporation or the individual, not only shall such offender be punished, but also the corporation or the individual shall be punished by a fine under each relevant Article.

【Enforcement Decree of the Quality Control of Agricultural Products (amended by Presidential Decree No. 10022 of Dec. 14, 2009)】

Article 24 (Method, etc. of Origin Labeling)

(1) The methods of indicating the place of origin pursuant to the provisions of Article 15 (3) of the Act shall be as follows:

1. In cases of domestic agricultural products, etc., the name of a Special Metropolitan City, Metropolitan City, or Do (hereinafter referred to as "City/Do") which has produced the agricultural products, etc. or the name of a Si/Gun/autonomous Gu (hereinafter referred to as "Si/Gun/Gu") shall be indicated;

2. In the case of imported agricultural products, etc., the country of origin shall be indicated in the manner prescribed by the Foreign Trade Act.

Article 25 (Criteria for Determining Origin)

(1) The criteria for determining the origin of domestic agricultural products, etc. under Article 15 (3) of the Act shall be as follows:

1. Agricultural products indicating the name of a City/Do or the name of a Si/Gun/Gu: A City/Do or a Si/Gun/Gu in which the relevant agricultural products are produced;

2. Wild animals and plants that indicate the name of a City/Do or the name of a Si/Gun/Gu: The City/Do or Si/Gun/Gu in which the relevant animals and plants are raised or collected shall be omitted.

2. As to the prosecutor's assertion of misapprehension of the legal principle

A. Whether the origin of livestock products is “place of origin” or “place of origin”

The concept of the Korean language prior to the origin (place of origin) is defined as “1. Product is produced, 2. East and plant is first cut,” and the concept of the Korean language prior to the production (production; hereinafter the same shall apply) is defined as “1..... all kinds of things necessary for human life are smelled and smelled, 2.0 and 8....... Meanwhile, according to the result of the current consumer status survey of the party consumer, the consumers are aware that most of the lawsuits were born about the origin of the livestock products, “chilled,” or that the lawsuits were raised in the opposite region during the growth period from the birth to the birth of the child, or during the growth period from the birth of the lawsuit to the birth of the child. Considering the above concepts of the Korean language prior to the origin and the consumer’s awareness status, it cannot be ruled out that the possibility of finding “the birth of the livestock products” as pointed out by the prosecutor as necessary factors.

However, the judicial branch does not necessarily have to interpret the language and text only in the same meaning as the Korean language prior to criminal law, and on the other hand, it guarantees the defendant's rights and interests based on the principle of no punishment without the law by interpreting it within the scope not exceeding its meaning on the basis of the concept of Korean language prior to criminal law. On the other hand, it is allowed to interpret the provisions most adjacent to the essential contents of the provision by taking systematic and logical interpretation method which clearly expresses the logical meaning of the provision in accordance with the systematic relation that takes into account the legislative intent and purpose of the provision within the meaning of the possible language (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Do2162, Jun. 14, 2007).

Therefore, the legislative purpose of the Agricultural Products Quality Control Act is to increase the commercial quality of agricultural products and encourage fair trade through adequate quality control of agricultural products, forestry products, and livestock products (Article 1 of the Act), and ② to affect the increase of the income of farmers and the consumer protection by mixing with the regional relation, the genetic and DNA factors such as the birth by the cattle in the smooth area may be considered, but on the other hand, it may be evaluated as an important factor that may affect the improvement and enhancement of the quality of the livestock products that were produced in the region where the livestock products, such as Korea, were born in the smooth area. On the other hand, it may be evaluated as an important factor that would affect the improvement of the quality of the livestock products that were produced in the region where the livestock products were produced in the region where the livestock products were shipped in the region where the livestock products were shipped in the region where the livestock products were shipped in the region where the 1st of the 6th of the 0th of the 1st of the 1st of the 1st of the 1st of the 1st of the 1st of the 1st of the 1st of the 1st of the livestock industry.

In light of these circumstances, the interpretation of the “place of origin of livestock products” under Article 2 subparag. 6, Articles 15(1) and 17(1)1 of the Act does not necessarily include the birth elements, such as the definition in the Korean language or consumer awareness, and the possibility of indicating the origin of livestock products can not be ruled out if the act of raising litigation and shipping was conducted by a farmer who is the producer of the primary industry in the economic structure.

Therefore, we cannot accept the part of the prosecutor's assertion that "the country of origin of livestock products shall include the place of birth of livestock products."

B. Whether a simple “scambling” is the origin of livestock products

The term "products subject to origin labeling prescribed by the Agricultural Products Quality Control Act" means, in principle, agricultural products, forest products, and livestock products produced by farmers and processed in an unprocessed state (Article 2 subparagraph 1 of the Act), and persons who sell or process agricultural products, forestry products, forest products, livestock products, and processed products shall indicate their origin (Article 15 (1) of the Act), and the raw materials of such agricultural products and processed products shall separately indicate their origin (Article 15 (2) of the Act).

On the other hand, the beef tracking system is a system that strengthens consumer protection regarding the place of origin labeling by reporting to the livestock cooperative, etc. on the birth, death, or importing, exporting, transferring, or acquiring cattle by transfer. The beef tracking system is a system that strengthens consumer protection regarding the place of origin labeling by reporting it to an agency, such as livestock cooperative, etc. within 30 days in case of birth, death, or importation, exportation, transfer, or acquisition of cattle, and by reporting it to the agency, such as livestock cooperative, etc. within 30 days in writing or telephone. Even in case of slaughter, processing, and sale of cattle, the revision of the Enforcement Decree and the Rules of the Ministry for Food, Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries on July 20, 208 to implement the above beef tracking system, such as the birth, discard, import, export, transfer, acquisition, etc. of cattle, the beef tracking system was implemented from December 22, 2008 to 200.

In full view of all of the above provisions, especially the cases where individual provisions of the Agricultural Products Quality Control Act are divided into “production” and “processing,” the meaning of “production” under the Act is not broad meaning to include “processing” in the second industry, but it appears to have been legislated in a narrow sense to consider agriculture, forestry, and the livestock industry. In full view of the implementation process of the beef tracking system and the current status of transactions, the term “the country or region where the livestock products are produced” under Article 2 subparag. 6 of the Act refers to the country or region where the farmer, who is the main producer of the first industry, was engaged in the production related to the birth, raising, and shipping of litigation as part of the first industrial economic activity.

In addition, in a case where a distributor purchased a lawsuit from a farmer and moved it to a slaughterhouse in another area at all, only the act of slaughter is not directly affected by the quality formation of beef, which is the product of the primary industry, and the act of slaughter conducted by a slaughter business operator is classified into a distribution stage (third industry) as it constitutes "service" in its nature, and the social necessity that the act of slaughter of livestock products should be done in a sanitary manner for the food safety of consumers lies in the entire act of slaughter. Thus, the mere act of slaughter conducted by such a distributor does not constitute an act of production provided for in the Agricultural Products Quality Control Act.

Nevertheless, the lower court, on the premise of the erroneous legal doctrine that the meaning of “production” as prescribed by the Act is the birth, breeding, and slaughter of cattle, and that only the area of slaughter among those areas can be the origin of livestock products, has been premised on the erroneous legal doctrine to the effect that livestock products can be originating. Since the Defendants were born, raised, and shipped in other areas among the limited volume of oriental medicine sold by the Defendants to consumers, and only carried out in the breadth area, and omitted the necessary deliberation and judgment as to the distribution volume of fake milk, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine pertaining thereto, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. Therefore, the Prosecutor’s allegation in this part

C. Whether the short-term “storage place” immediately before slaughter by the distributor is the origin of livestock products

(1) The lower court determined to the effect that the act of short-term storage immediately before slaughter by a distributor can be seen as breeding. However, such determination is difficult to accept for the following reasons.

First, the Korean language prior concept of "livestock breeding" among the elements of the production of livestock products is defined as "livestock or animal oil", and the concept of "here" is defined as "welve the plant." On the other hand, the term in the Korean language prior concept of "Shipment (Shipment)" is defined as "the act of producing and shipping products to the market", and it is reasonable to understand as "the act of producing and selling livestock products to the first stage of manufacturing and selling the products to the first stage of manufacturing and selling the products." In particular, it is reasonable to understand as "the act of producing and selling the products to the first stage of manufacturing and selling the products to the first stage of manufacturing and selling the products," in light of the following: (a) the meaning of "the act of raising and selling livestock products to the first stage of manufacturing and selling the products to the first stage of manufacturing and selling the products; and (b) it is reasonable to understand as "the act of raising and selling the products to the first stage of manufacturing and selling the products to the first stage of manufacturing and selling the products."

Second, in the scambage slaughterhouse in Seoul, cattle 390 ma, pigs 770 mascam, which is 1/2 of the total consumption in Seoul, are slaughtered every day (see, e.g., Articles 2 book Ma3 cultural day and 5 May 24, 2010, Ma7 Mascamscams, etc., articles Ma69, Sept. 15, 201, and articles Ma8 Korean economy 201, Nov. 16, 2011). If it is identified as breeding at any time in the short period of storage immediately before slaughter conducted by the distributor, cattle near the scambage slaughterhouse can be identified as Seoul.

셋째, 우리나라의 한우는 통상적으로 생후 약 4∽5개월까지 젖먹이로 지내고, 생후 약 1년 무렵까지 송아지로 분류되며, 수소의 경우에는 생후 약 6개월 정도에 거세를 하기도 하고, 암소의 경우에는 생후 약 1년 2개월∽1년 6개월 정도에 수태가 가능하며, 한우가 생후 약 2년 무렵이 되었을 때에는 소의 성장 단계를 지나서 농업인이 사료제공에 따른 경제적 비용을 감안하며 단순히 소의 체중을 늘리는 것에 초점을 맞추는 ‘비육(비육)’ 단계로 들어서며, 보통 수소는 생후 약 30개월 무렵에, 암소는 생후 약 28개월 무렵에 도축·유통의 적령기에 이르는 한우의 생리관계 및 사육과정 등에 비추어 보면, 유통업자가 농업인으로부터 한우를 출하받은 뒤 그 소를 도축장 부근의 우사로 이동시켜 잠시 먹이고 재우면서 보관하는 행위에 대하여는 이를 가리켜 ‘농업인의 사육행위’로 보기는 어렵다고 판단된다.

(2) Furthermore, we examine whether a certain degree of “short-term” act is limited to simple storage, not to breeding, in a case where the distributor performed the act of eating and eating immediately before slaughter.

원심증인 공소외 8, 3, 9 등의 각 법정진술과 기록에 의하면, ① 유통업자가 다른 지역의 농업인으로부터 한우를 출하받은 뒤 원주시 소재 도축장 부근의 횡성지역 우사(우사)에 소를 가져와 보관하는 경우에는, 소가 장거리 이동으로 인하여 심한 스트레스를 받아 약 20∽25㎏가량의 체중이 감소하는 일이 흔히 발생하는 사실(공판기록 141쪽 등), ② 소의 이동에 따른 위와 같은 체중감소분은 축산물의 가격감소의 요인이 되므로 유통업자는 20일∽1개월의 기간 동안 소를 먹이고 재우면서 출하 직전의 원래 체중을 회복시키도록 노력하는 사실(공판기록 141, 197쪽 등), ③ 그런데 다른 지역에서 출하받아 가져온 소가 위 20일∽1개월의 기간 내에 언제나 원래 체중을 회복하는 것이 아니라 개별적인 소의 상태나 성질에 따라 그 회복기간이 연장되기도 하고, 위와 같이 이동된 소는 1개월 정도 지나면 먹기 시작해서 3개월 정도 돼야 잘 먹으며, 3개월이 지나면 소의 상태가 점차 좋아지는 사실(공판기록 197쪽 등), ④ 피고인 11 농협은 한우중개상 등으로부터 공급받은 한우를 조합팀장들이 운영하는 서울 및 수도권 일대 28곳의 농협 직거래판매처를 통해 유통시켰는데, 소비자들에 의하여 발생하는 그때그때의 수요상황에 따라 한우의 도축 및 유통수량을 조절하기도 한 사실, ⑤ 수사기관이 피고인들에 의한 가짜 횡성한우 판매를 단속하여 수사와 재판이 진행되는 과정에서 줄곧 ‘2∽3개월 내에 도축한 유통수량’에 대하여 불법이라는 취지로 주장하여 온 사실을 각 인정할 수 있다.

In light of the purport and the reasoning of the law, even if the distributor intended to bring the cattle shipped out from another area to a breadth and store immediately before slaughter, it is difficult to deem that the distributor engaged in the slaughter within at least two months after moving to a narrow range, and that the distributor engaged in the breeding of the cattle.

〔 한편 한우중개상 겸 농업인들이 다른 지역에서 소를 횡성지역으로 이동시킨 후 2개월을 초과하여 4개월 무렵까지의 기간 동안 갖고 있다가 이를 도축한 경우에는, 유통업자의 이러한 행위를 가리켜 단순한 보관행위와 사육행위 중 무엇으로 볼 것인지 여부가 다소 불명확하여 선뜻 판단하기가 어렵다고 할 것인바, 당심은 2∽4개월 보관기간에 대하여는 이를 가리켜 가짜 횡성한우로 단정해서 파악하지는 아니하며, 다만 유통업자가 소를 이동시킨 후 2개월도 못 되는 기간 내에 도축한 경우에는 그 보관기간이 너무도 짧은 기간에 해당하므로, 적어도 이러한 보관행위에 대하여는 도저히 사육행위로 보기가 어렵다는 취지로 판단하는 것이다. 〕

(3) Nevertheless, the lower court, on the premise of the erroneous legal doctrine that the Defendants’ act of short-term storage immediately before slaughter by a distributor may be always deemed an act of raising livestock, and therefore, the Defendants were born, raised, and shipped in other areas among the limited volume of the Chinese-style cattle sold by the Defendants to consumers, and the distributor took custody of them to a breadth area near the slaughterhouse, and omitted the necessary deliberation and judgment as to the quantity of the Chinese-style cattle distributed only within a short period of less than two months, and thus, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine pertaining thereto, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. Therefore, the Prosecutor’s assertion of this part of the

3. Regarding the prosecutor's assertion of mistake of facts

A. The part concerning Defendant 1, 2, 9, and 11

(1) 검사는, 피고인 11 농협의 임직원인 피고인 1, 2, 9가 판매한 공소사실 기재 한우 총 483마리는 모두 다른 지역에서 출생·사육·출하되어 한우중개상을 통하여 횡성군으로 이동시켜 즉시 도축하거나, 또는 2∽3개월에도 못 미치는 단기간 동안 이를 보관하다가 도축한 것이라고 주장한다.

이에 대하여 위 피고인들은, 자신들이 농협 직거래판매처에 공급한 한우는 모두 다른 지역에서 출생·사육·출하되어 횡성군으로 이동시켰다가 도축한 것이기는 하지만, 횡성군에서의 사육기간은 20일∽20개월의 다양한 기간에 걸쳐 있다고 주장한다.

그러므로 살피건대, 검사의 위 주장에 부합하는 증거로는 한우중개상 겸 농업인 공소외 3, 10, 8, 11, 12, 9, 13, 14의 수사기관에서의 각 진술서와 진술조서 및 한우생산자출하증명서와 도축검사신청서 등의 관계 서류가 있는바, 위 피고인들이 농협 직거래판매처에 쇠고기를 공급한 2008. 1. 1.경∽2009. 2. 28.경의 판매기간은 관계 법령에 의한 쇠고기이력추적제도 및 귀표의 부착이 전국적으로 강제시행 되기 이전의 일자가 혼재되어 있으므로, 검사가 내세우는 한우생산자출하증명서와 도축검사신청서 등의 관계 서류의 기재만으로는 농업인에 의한 출생·사육·출하의 정확한 일자 및 생산주체를 알기가 어렵고, 따라서 한우를 생산한 농업인이나 한우중개상 등의 구체적인 진술내용이 뒷받침되지 않는 범위 내에서는 이러한 관계 서류의 기재만으로는 공소사실상의 원산지 허위표시 수량을 총 483마리로 확정하기에는 충분하다고 볼 수 없다.

한편, 한우중개상 겸 농업인 공소외 3, 10, 8, 11, 12, 9, 13, 14의 수사기관에서의 각 진술서와 진술조서의 기재내용은 “ 피고인 1, 2, 9가 농협 직거래판매처 조합팀장들을 통하여 판매한 공소사실 기재 한우 총 483마리는 모두 다른 지역에서 출생·사육·출하되어 한우중개상에 의하여 횡성군으로 이동시켜 즉시 도축하거나, 또는 2∽3개월에도 못 미치는 단기간 동안 이를 보관하다가 도축한 것이다.”라는 취지로 요약되지만, 위 피고인들이 원심과 당심법정에서 이를 유죄의 증거로 사용하는 것에 동의하지 아니하므로, 공소외 3, 10, 8, 11, 12, 9, 13, 14에 대한 수사기관에서의 각 진술서와 진술조서의 기재내용은 해당 진술자의 법정증언에 의하여 그 진정 성립이 인정돼야 할 것인데, 공소외 3, 10, 8, 11, 12, 9, 13, 14는 원심법정에 증인으로 출석하여 그 각 수사기관에서의 진술서와 진술조서의 기재내용이 자신들이 실제로 진술한 내용과 상이하게 기재되어 있다는 취지로 진술하고 있으며, 나아가 공소외 3 등을 조사한 특별경찰관 공소외 15, 16의 각 조사자증언에 의하더라도 공소외 3, 10, 8, 11, 12, 9, 13, 14의 수사기관에서의 진술서 및 진술조서의 기재내용이 특별하게 신빙할 수 있는 상태에서 이루어졌음을 뒷받침하기에는 부족하므로, 결국 공소외 3, 10, 8, 11, 12, 9, 13, 14의 수사기관에서의 진술서와 진술조서의 각 기재 및 원심과 당심증인 공소외 15, 16의 각 조사자증언 중 전문진술 부분은 이를 유죄의 근거로 삼을 만한 증거능력이 없다. 따라서 검사의 위 사실오인 주장을 그대로 받아들이기는 어렵다.

(2) 그러나 원심의 판단 중 “ 피고인 11 농협의 임직원인 피고인 1, 2, 9가 서울 및 수도권 일대의 농협 직거래판매처에 공급하여 소비자들에게 판매한 한우의 수량 중 다른 지역에서 출생·사육·출하되어 한우중개상을 통하여 횡성군으로 이동시켜 즉시 도축하거나, 또는 2∽3개월에도 못 미치는 단기간 동안 이를 보관하다가 도축한 수량을 특정하여 인정할 수 없다.”라는 취지의 판단 부분은 다음과 같은 이유에서 그대로 수긍하기 어렵다.

First of all, based on the testimony of each court below held by Korea-friendly intermediary and Nonindicted 3, 10, 8, 11, 12, 9, 13, and 14, the court below rejected the admissibility of the part of the expert testimony among the testimony of the above Nonindicted 3, etc. and the witness Nonindicted 15, and Nonindicted 16, the prosecutor rejected the admissibility of the part of the witness testimony among the testimony of the above Nonindicted 3, etc. and the witness Nonindicted 3, etc., and rejected the assertion to the effect that the amount of only one person whose country of origin was falsely indicated in the facts charged constitutes 483 E.

그런데 위 8명의 원심증인 중 한우중개상 겸 농업인 공소외 3, 10, 8, 11, 12의 각 원심증언에 의하면, 비록 위 증인들이 다른 지역에서 구입하여 횡성군으로 들여와 2∽3개월 내에 도축한 소의 수량을 당초의 공소사실 기재 수량보다 대폭 감축하여 진술하고는 있지만, 그에 덧붙여 다른 지역의 축산농가에서 출생·사육·출하된 한우로서 횡성군으로 이동시킨 당일에 곧바로 도축한 소의 수량이 합계 25∽27마리에 이른다는 사실 및 2∽3개월 또는 3∽4개월 내에 도축한 소의 수량을 개략적으로라도 특정할 수 있을 정도의 사실관계에 대하여 아래와 같이 구체적인 진술을 하고 있다.

첫째, 한우중개상 공소외 3의 경우에 관하여 보건대, 공소외 3은 2008. 1. 1.경∽2009. 2. 28.경 피고인 11 농협에게 한우 총 450마리를 공급하였는데, 그와 같이 공급한 경위는 다른 지역의 축산농가에서 출생·사육·출하된 한우를 주로 해당 농가에 직접 찾아가서 이를 구입하거나, 또는 중간거래상을 경유하는 등의 방법에 의하여 유통업자에 의한 전형적인 경제활동의 일환으로 피고인 11 농협에게 이를 공급했던 것으로 보이는바, 한우중개상 공소외 3이 공급한 위 450마리 중 20마리는 다른 지역에서 출생·사육·출하된 한우를 구입하여 원주시 소재 도축장으로 이동시켜 그 당일에 곧바로 도축한 뒤 이를 유통시킨 것이고, 위 450마리 중 나머지 430마리는 도축장 인근의 횡성군 소재 우사(우사)로 이동시켜 보관 내지 사육을 하다가 3∽4개월 내에 도축한 뒤 이를 유통시킨 것이다(공판기록 162∽164쪽).

〔 한편 한우중개상 공소외 12는 다른 지역에서 출생·사육·출하된 한우를 피고인 11 농협에게 총 100마리 공급하였으며, 그 중 3마리는 이동 후 15일 이내에 도축한 뒤 이를 유통시켰고, 나머지 97마리는 도축장 인근 우사에서 보관하다가 2∽4개월 내에 도축한 뒤 이를 유통시켰다고 증언하였는데, 이와 같은 유통수량은 한우중개상 공소외 12가 유통업자인 공소외 3을 거쳐서 피고인 11 농협에게 공급했던 것이므로, 위 공소외 3의 유통수량에 이미 포함된 것이다(공판기록 255∽256쪽). 〕

둘째, 한우중개상 공소외 10의 경우에 관하여 보건대, 공소외 10은 2008. 1. 1.경∽2009. 2. 28.경 피고인 11 농협에게 한우 총 318마리를 공급하였는데, 그와 같이 공급한 경위는 앞서 본 공소외 3의 경우와 마찬가지로 유통행위의 일환으로 이를 공급했던 것으로 보이는바, 한우중개상 공소외 10이 공급한 위 318마리 중 2∽3마리는 다른 지역에서 출생·사육·출하된 한우를 구입하여 원주시 소재 도축장으로 이동시켜 그 당일에 곧바로 도축한 뒤 이를 유통시킨 것이고, 위 318마리 중 30% 정도인 95마리는 도축장 인근의 횡성군 소재 우사로 이동시켜 보관 내지 사육을 하다가 2∽3개월 내에 도축한 뒤 이를 유통시킨 것이며, 그 나머지 한우는 3개월을 초과하여 사육하다가 도축한 뒤 이를 유통시킨 것이다(공판기록 152, 158쪽).

셋째, 한우중개상 겸 농업인 공소외 8의 경우에 관하여 보건대, 공소외 8은 2008. 1. 1.경∽2009. 2. 28.경 피고인 11 농협에게 한우 총 106마리를 공급하였는데, 공소외 8이 공급한 위 106마리 중 10마리는 다른 지역에서 출생·사육·출하된 한우를 구입하여 도축장 인근의 횡성군 소재 우사로 이동시켜 보관 내지 사육을 하다가 2∽3개월 내에 도축한 뒤 이를 유통시킨 것이고, 그 나머지 한우는 3개월을 초과하여 사육하다가 도축한 뒤 이를 유통시킨 것이다(공판기록 129, 130쪽).

넷째, 한우중개상 겸 농업인 공소외 11의 경우에 관하여 보건대, 공소외 11은 2008. 1. 1.경∽2009. 2. 28.경 피고인 11 농협에게 한우 총 30마리를 공급하였는데, 공소외 11이 공급한 위 30마리 중 3∽4마리는 다른 지역에서 출생·사육·출하된 한우를 구입하여 원주시 소재 도축장으로 이동시켜 그 당일에 곧바로 도축한 뒤 이를 유통시킨 것이고, 위 30마리 중 16∽17마리는 도축장 인근의 횡성군 소재 우사로 이동시켜 보관 내지 사육을 하다가 2∽4개월 내에 도축한 뒤 이를 유통시킨 것이며, 그 나머지 한우는 3개월을 초과하여 사육하다가 도축한 뒤 이를 유통시킨 것이다(공판기록 261∽263쪽).

In light of the following, it is reasonable to view that the testimony made by Nonindicted 3, etc. at the lower court to have been made in a relatively detailed manner in the lower court as part of denying the authenticity of each statement and written statement at an investigation agency unfavorable to him/her in the course of denying the authenticity of each statement and written statement, and that the testimony made by Nonindicted 3, 10, 8, 11, and 12 were relatively detailed in the lower court. ② The Defendants and their defense counsel did not impose any special attack on each of the testimony made by Nonindicted 3, etc. at the lower court on which Nonindicted 3, etc. stated on the details of specific distribution; ③ the testimony is supported by each of the lower court which Nonindicted 3, etc. stated on the details of specific distribution by the entry of the relevant documents, such as the Korea-friendly producer shipment certificate and the written application for slaughter inspection, etc.

The court below (the court below did not reject the above testimony of Nonindicted 3, etc., and instead rejected the authenticity of each statement and statement in the investigation agency. Since the above testimony of Nonindicted 3, etc. was used in the process of rejecting the authenticity of each statement and statement in the investigation agency, the court below may recognize the excessive facts based on the above testimony of Nonindicted 3, etc., which was not rejected by the court below.

Therefore, in full view of the other evidence submitted by the prosecutor, Defendant 1, 2, and 9, who is an executive officer or employee of the agricultural cooperative, purchased Chinese cattle born, raised, or shipped in another area through brokerage and moved to a slaughterhouse adjacent to the crossing area, and immediately thereafter, slaughtered cattle, or stored a lawsuit purchased by the distributor, and then slaughtered it within a short period of not more than two months, and then distributed as a fake to consumers in Seoul and the Seoul metropolitan area as listed below.

Table 1

본문내 포함된 표 순번 유통업자 횡성으로 이동 후 당일 도축수량 횡성으로 이동 후 2개월 내 도축수량 1 공소외 3 20마리 215마리(주2) 2 공소외 10 2~3마리 63마리(주3) 3 공소외 8 0마리 6마리(주4) 4 공소외 11 3~4 마리 8마리(주5) 소계 ？ 25~27마리 292마리 합계 약 317~319마리 인정수량 약 250마리(주6)

Note 2) 215ma

Note 3) 63ma

Note 4) 6 Marin

Note 5) 8Ma

Note 6) 250 Ma

Thus, the prosecutor's above erroneous determination of facts against the defendant 1, 2, 9, and 11 is justified within the limit of approximately 250 mari, which is recognized in Table 1, and the remainder in excess is without merit.

B. The part concerning Defendant 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 10

The prosecutor asserts that Defendant 3(64 E, Defendant 4(72 E, Defendant 5(140 E, Defendant 6(100 E, Defendant 7(859), Defendant 8(12 E, and Defendant 10(10 E) who is the head of the agricultural cooperative team of the agricultural cooperative of the agricultural cooperative of the agricultural cooperative of the agricultural cooperative of the Republic of Korea have sold livestock products to consumers by falsely indicating the origin of each of the relevant kg and the number of the said ma as indicated in the annexed list of crimes.

The prosecutor argued that Defendant 1, 2, and 9, who is Defendant 11’s executive officer or employee, distributed a large of 483 horse clocks. However, as stated in the above paragraph (a) above, the trial court merely recognizes the total of about 250 mariths as a fake, and it is difficult to conclude that the remaining approximately approximately 230 mariths can be seen as a fake clock because it is unclear what is a simple storage and breeding of the acts of the Korea-Japan intermediary. Thus, in order to establish the crime of Defendant 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 10, the head of the partnership team, the fact that part of the above 250 mariths, which is a part of the above 250 maws, has been supplied to the Agricultural Cooperative Administration individually operated by the above Defendants, should be proved.

However, even if Defendant 5 was supplied with 140 ma, which is the largest volume of 140 mas, out of the total quantity of Korea-U.S. 11 distributed by Defendant 11, there is no evidence to support the allocation and supply of fakes to each of the above Defendants, the head of the partnership team, and even if the above Defendants were to be supplied with 140 mas, which is a number of 230 mas, from Defendant 11, it cannot be readily concluded that the above Defendant was supplied with approximately 140 mas, which is a number of 140 mas within the scope of 140 mas. Thus, the possibility that all of the above 140 mas can be entirely ruled out, and the same situation is recognized in the case of Defendant 3, 4, Defendant 6, 7, 8, and 10

Therefore, it is difficult to pronounce Defendant 11 guilty of the above Defendants, who are the head of the cooperative team, with only a vague doubt without prosecutor’s certificate of crime as to how the agricultural cooperative 11 allocated and supplied a fake 250 gale volume to the head of the cooperative team. The prosecutor’s assertion of mistake of facts against the above Defendants is without merit.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, since the prosecutor's appeal against the defendant 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 10 is without merit, all of them are dismissed pursuant to Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. Of the judgment below, the part against the defendant 1, 2, 9, and 11 among the judgment below against the defendant 1 cannot be affirmed within a range of approximately 250 maris in total as shown in Table 1, the judgment of innocence cannot be maintained. Thus, it shall be reversed pursuant to Article 364 (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and it shall be again decided after the pleading as follows

Defendant 1, as the president of the agricultural cooperative, is in charge of the direct trade business of this case. Defendant 9, as the president of the agricultural cooperative, is in charge of the direct trade business of this case. Defendant 2, as the director of the agricultural cooperative, manages funds for the direct trade business of this case. Defendant 2, as the director of the agricultural cooperative, is in charge of the direct trade business of this case. Defendant 11 is a corporation incorporated for the purpose of selling agricultural and livestock products.

around July 2006, Defendant 1, 9, and 2 planned to operate the “direct trade sales business for Defendant 11 agricultural cooperatives” using the brand image of the “brupted well”, purchased and slaughtered faw from the Chinese-gunn farmer in the metropolitan area where Nonindicted 1 was not managed by the livestock consultation, and supplied them to Defendant 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 10, who is the head of the sales team having direct trade sales place in the Seoul and the Seoul metropolitan area non-Indicted 2, who is the head of the sales team, in the Seoul and the Seoul metropolitan area non-Indicted 2, and paid incentives in the form of the above Defendant 3, etc., the remainder after deducting approximately KRW 10% of the fee and the fee for the use of equipment, such as transportation vehicles, from the sales price. After that, around January 208, the direct trade sales place related to the Defendant 111 had led to 76 places.

However, Defendant 1, 9, and 2 knew about 90% of the large-scale cattle born and raised in the Crossing-gun under the management of the livestock consultation with Nonindicted 1, and the small amount of cattle born and raised in the Crossing-gun is limited, so it is not possible to supply the cross-feass necessary for the above direct trade sales center properly.

Nevertheless, the above Defendants purchased and slaughtered Korea-Japan, which had been born and raised in other areas than the Crossing-gun, such as Gongju, from Non-Party 3, etc. in Korea-Japan, using the fact that the brand of “brut-do” is widely known across the country and the preference of consumers is higher than any other regions, and sold it to many unspecified consumers as if it were “brupted,” and conspired in order to increase sales volume, and to acquire profits accrued therefrom.

1. Defendant 1, 9, and 2

Defendant 1, 9, and 2 purchased Korea-friendly intermediary and non-indicted 3, 10, 8, and 11 from January 1, 2008 to February 28, 2009, and distribute them through direct trade sales offices through the agricultural cooperatives. Of them, approximately 250 cm in the sum indicated in Table 1 is merely slaughtered in the crossing area, or was slaughtered within 2 months, since the above non-indicted 3, etc., who is a distributor, were slaughtered in the border area, they should not make a false indication of “chilling” because their origin is not crossed, nor sell them to consumers by disguisedly indicating it.

Nevertheless, the above Defendants, during the sales period, disguisedly circulated approximately 250 malculation in the direct trade store in Seoul and the Seoul Special Metropolitan City, the Seoul and the Seoul Special Metropolitan City, and acquired unjust profits in the amount by selling them to unspecified multiple consumers, which are the head of the cooperative team, knowing such circumstances, Defendant 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 8, and 10, which is the head of the cooperative team, who is the head of the cooperative team, who knows such circumstances, sell a wide letter as in the column of "sale method" as stated in the attached list of crimes.

2. Defendant 11

Defendant 11: (a) between January 1, 2008 and February 28, 2009, Defendant 1, the representative between Defendant 1 and Defendant 11, in relation to the Defendant 11’s business, distributed them under the disguised flusing of approximately 250 maris, as described in the foregoing paragraph 1.; (b) through the head of the association in the Seoul and the Seoul Agricultural Cooperative Co., Ltd., Inc., the direct trade marketing division, in the Seoul and the Seoul metropolitan area, the country of origin was falsely indicated; and (c) obtained unjust benefits in an amount by selling approximately 250 maris to unspecified multiple consumers through the disguised flusing of origin.

To the extent that it does not interfere with the scope of trial and the exercise of the right to defense of the above defendants, the court recognized the crime by adding more and more phrases to be appropriate in accordance with the relevant legal principles. In the case of a single comprehensive crime, unless there are special circumstances, such as the date, place, method, quantity, etc. of the crime, it is sufficient that the criminal facts are clearly identified to the extent that it can be known that the facts are referred to in general in terms of the date, place, method, quantity, etc. of the crime.

1. Each legal statement of the defendant 1, 2, and 9 in part;

1. Part of the legal statement of Nonindicted Party 17 by the trial witness

1. Each legal statement of the witness of the court below on Nonindicted 3, 10, 8, 11, 12, and 9

1. Partial entry of the fact-finding survey on consumers in the research institute of diversium;

1. Some entries in the application for slaughter inspection, the Chinese milk producer's shipment certificate, and the certificate of distribution transaction;

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

Defendant 1, 2, 9: Articles 34-2, 17(1)1 and 3 of the former Agricultural Products Quality Control Act, Article 30 of the Criminal Act

Defendant 11: Articles 37, 34-2, and 17(1)1 and 3 of the former Agricultural Products Quality Control Act; Article 30 of the Criminal Act

1. Selection of punishment;

Defendant 1, 2, and 9: Imprisonment

1. Aggravation of concurrent crimes;

Defendants: former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act

1. Suspension of execution;

Defendant 2 and 9: Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act

1. Order of provisional payment;

Defendant 11: Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

The original agricultural cooperative is an organization formed mainly by farmers, and has fulfilled its social efforts and responsibilities for the quality assurance of agricultural products and the soundness of distribution order, and consumers have engaged in the following consumption activities with the belief that the "agricultural cooperative" with considerable trust in the organization and mark is not distributing fake agricultural products or livestock products.

However, Defendant 11, Defendant 9, and Defendant 2, the president, executive officers, and employees of the agricultural cooperative head, and executive officers and employees of the agricultural cooperative, committed a crime of distributing and selling a large number of fake rains by mixing it with a large number of products used in the reversely using the consumer's trust that they would naturally distribute fake rains as a unit of a crossing area, and thus, they committed a crime of distributing and selling a large number of fake rains. Thus, the said Defendants’ social harm and injury to the sound distribution order and trust relationship in our society is very large.

Therefore, the above Defendants should be held legally liable for responding to the criminal act of illegal distribution, claiming the Nonghyup, and in particular, Defendant 1, the president of the agricultural cooperative, who is Defendant 11, should be held responsible for the criminal act of illegal distribution of approximately 250 maris in bulk. The sentence should be imposed by asking the general responsibility for the crime of illegal distribution.

However, as Defendant 9 and Defendant 11’s director in charge of the management of funds as a whole by Defendant 11, and Defendant 2 in charge of the practical affairs related to the purchase and distribution of Han-do constitutes a case where the degree of responsibility for the crime of this case is relatively less than Defendant 1, the president of the cooperative, and thus, it is appropriate to punish Defendant 9 and 2 as to Defendant 2, to the extent that the suspension of execution of imprisonment corresponding to the grounds for disqualification of executive officers

Meanwhile, even though Defendant 1, 9, and 2 were illegally distributed by Defendant 11, an executive officer or employee of the Agricultural Cooperative, the volume of 250 mada, which was approximately 250 mada, the origin of which was falsely indicated and sold to consumers, it is true that the above Defendants were sold to consumers, but at least domestic products are not sold with defective food or imported goods harmful to consumers' health, but with the sale of them domestically. Thus, this reason is to determine the specific sentence by reflecting it as a favorable sentencing factor for the above Defendants.

In addition to these circumstances, in full view of all the conditions of sentencing as shown in the arguments, including the above Defendants’ age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, the sentence of imprisonment for 8 months shall be imposed on Defendant 1, Defendant 9, and Defendant 2 as well as fine of 10,000 won shall be imposed on Defendant 1, Defendant 11, respectively.

The summary of the facts charged in the instant case against Defendant 1, 2, 9, and 111 is that the said Defendants distributed a fake letter of total of 483 Mari, and the said Defendants falsely indicated the origin in the direct trade sales place in Seoul and the Seoul metropolitan area as “chilling” (Article 17(1)1 of the Act). As such, the said Defendants sold a total of 483 Mari, which disguised origin, to consumers (Article 17(1)3 of the Act).

However, the court below found the defendant guilty of each crime only for about 250 ma of the total 483 mama of the facts charged, and judged that there is insufficient evidence of the crime about the false indication of origin and disguised sale with respect to the remaining sales quantity in excess of the above 483 mama, and thus, it should be acquitted pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act. However, as long as the court found the defendant guilty of each crime of false indication of origin and disguised sale of the 250 mama of the 483 mama of the facts charged, as long as the court found the defendant guilty of each crime of false indication of origin and disguised sale of the 2

[Attachment]

Judges Kim Dong-jin (Presiding Judge)

Note 1) Under the legal theory, the term “place of origin” and “name of origin” are distinguished. The term “place of origin” refers to the regional source of the product without color, such as Made and krea, and the term “Madro” means that the name of origin is solid in quality and credit in the regional name, such as Madro,” etc. As regards the name of origin, the name of origin is legally more protected by the geographical indication system. Nonindicted 1 Livestock Cooperatives is the state of obtaining the registration of geographical indications and quality certification with respect to the geographical marks of “Imh 1mar”.

2) As above 2.C., the court held that, in a case where the distributor purchased and stored the cattle born, raised, or shipped in another region within a short period of less than two months, the act of keeping the cattle in custody cannot be deemed an act of raising cattle. Since Nonindicted 3 stated that the number of cattle slaughtered within 3-4 months after moving the cattle c-4, the number of cattle slaughtered within the 3-4 months was 430 m, based on this testimony, it can be recognized that the 215 mar out of the 430mar 430m x 2 months was slaughtered within 2 months ( = 430 E x 4 months ± 4 months).

Note 3) 95 Mari ¡¿ 2 months ¡À 3 months = 63 Mari

Note 4) 10ma x 2 months ± 3 months = 6 years

Note 5) 16 Erix 2 months ¡À 4 months = 8 Eri

Note 6) If the method of proportional distribution is applied as indicated in paragraphs (2), (3), (4), and (5) of each week, the genuine quantity and the possibility of an error may not be ruled out. Such an error seems to not exceed 64 mar, which is equivalent to 20% of the above 317 through 319ma, even though there are many such errors. Furthermore, the true quantity of a milk slaughtered within 2 months, which deducts the 64 mar, which is less than 10 units from the above 317 to 319ma, would not be at least below 250 mar, which is the 253mar quantity, which is the 10 unit of less than 10 units. Accordingly, it would be recognized that approximately 250 mar, which is the 250mar quantity as the slaughter quantity within 2 months.

Note 7) 450ma (Nonindicted 3) + 318ma (Nonindicted 10) + 106ma (Nonindicted 8) + 30ma (Nonindicted 11) = 904ma

Note 8) Since the respective sales volume, quantity converted into kg, and market value, etc. classified into 28 direct trade sales offices in the attached list of crimes, among the annexed list of crimes, are not accurate as much as possible to be invoked in this case, criminal facts are recognized only on the basis of the total volume of fake.