2015No1999 Violation of the Food Sanitation Act

1. A;

2. B

3. C.

4. D;

5. E.

6. Fran Stock Company;

Prosecutor

Criminal prosecution (prosecutions, public trials), and trial on the case of the court;

J. Law Firm J.

Attorney K, L, and BJ (for all the defendants),

Law Firm G

Attorney I and H (for all the defendants),

Seoul Western District Court Decision 2014Da3124 Decided December 17, 2015

November 28, 2016

All appeals filed by the prosecutor against the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

The Defendants collected and inspected some products in order to inspect the same form of car tither as distributed in the market and to inspect the products indicated by the distribution deadline, and all products except the recovered products progress as they are, and then packaged in the warehouse. If the result of product inspection is confirmed to be appropriate, the products stored in the container are shipped out to the warehouse without manufacturing or processing process, and are distributed in the market without manufacturing or processing process. On the other hand, as a result of product inspection, if it is confirmed to be inappropriate due to detection of the same group, it is re-processed when it is confirmed to be inappropriate, it is deemed that the Defendants completed the process as the final products that need no more manufacturing process at the time of the completion of the Defendants’ inspection.

The Food Sanitation Act explicitly prohibits reprocessing food in violation of the standards and specifications. Attached Table 23 of the Enforcement Rule of the Food Sanitation Act, based on the premise that “an act of using a non-conforming product as a raw material for another product” was clearly prohibited by Article 7(4) of the Food Sanitation Act, etc., the instant amendment of the Enforcement Rule to the effect that the act was prohibited on October 21, 2015, which was re-verification of the act prohibited by the foregoing act, by revising the Enforcement Rule to strengthen the administrative disposition due to the suspension of manufacturing items for one month and the disposal of the relevant product, and not a new provision of the statutes prohibiting re-processing.

If we allow food manufacturers to engage in the act in this case, it would result in repeated reprocessing of non-compliant products and only the final problem. This would not only threaten food safety, but also result in extremely unfair consequences because it is not consistent with the sanitary concept of general consumers because it cannot be interpreted outside the logic that there is no need to consider the sanitary condition of the process at all.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below that all of the facts charged in this case constituted a case where there is no proof of crime is erroneous or misunderstanding of legal principles.

2. Summary of the facts charged in this case

A. Status of the Defendants

Defendant F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “F”) is a corporation for the purpose of manufacturing, processing, and selling food in Bupyeong-gu Incheon Metropolitan Government N. Defendant A has worked as the vice president of F from around 2004 to December 31, 2013, and has served as a joint representative director on January 1, 2014.

Defendant B served as the president of the 'Research Institute' located in Bupyeong-gu Incheon Metropolitan Government from April 2006 to December 31, 2013, and served as the vice president around January 1, 2014 and has served as the vice president of F’s manufacturing, research, and logistics portion.

Defendant C served in the 0 research institute from around 1996 to February 3, 2014, and served as the zero research institute ice head from around 201, and served as the 0 research institute ice head. From February 4, 2014 to February 4, 2014, Defendant C served as the QES (Quality Environment Safety Team) head.

Defendant D retired from office as the Fjin Factory from March 23, 2010 to December 31, 2013, and served as the representative director of P, a company related to F, around the end of February 2014.

Defendant E served as the manufacturing team, QE (Quality Safety Team) team leader, etc. in the Fjin-gun Q from January 2004 to February 28, 2012, Defendant E worked as the manufacturing team, QE (Quality Safety Team) team. Thereafter, Defendant E served as the technical research institute from January 1, 2014 to February 1, 2014.

(b) Criminal facts;

Foods or food additives, the standards and specifications of which are determined pursuant to the Food Sanitation Act shall be manufactured, imported, processed, used, cooked, or preserved in accordance with such standards, and foods or food additives that fail to meet such standards and specifications shall not be sold or manufactured, imported, processed, used, cooked, stored, subdivided, transported, preserved, or displayed for sale.

According to the standards and specifications determined by the Minister of Food and Drug Safety, the same group of units shall be voice in the case of ice products.

The Defendants knew the detection of the same group in the Fjin Factory, Maice, and so on. The Defendants knew that the same group was detected through self-quality inspection, etc. The Defendants sold, processed, or used the above product if the same group was detected through self-quality inspection, and even if the same group was shipped, they should dispose of or recover the product if the same group was detected through the above group, and when the same group was detected through self-quality inspection, they should report the discovery of the group group to the Ministry of Food and Drug Safety. However, the Defendants did not report the detection of the group group, but did not report the fact to the Ministry of Food and Drug Safety, which is in conformity with the internal regulation, and HACCP process, which is certified by the same group.

1) Joint principal offenders committed by Defendant A, B, and C

After completing the FJ manufacturing process on March 5, 2012, the Defendants came to know that ‘R' products are found to be in conformity with the standards and specifications prescribed by the Food Sanitation Act through self-quality inspection, and that such products are in conformity with the standards and specifications prescribed by the Food Sanitation Act.

From April 18, 2012, Defendants conspired to sell 'R' products, and did not dispose of 'R' products without knowing the fact that they are inappropriate, but did not dispose of 'R' products at a Fjin-do factory. At around April 18, 2012, Defendants made 65,424 'R' products for sale by mixing about 17% of 'R' products subject to destruction because they failed to meet the above standards and specifications, and made 31,486,288 won at the market price, and made 30,000,000 won at the market price of 31,486,00,000 won at the market price of 30,000,000 won from the above date and time to 30,000,000 won, and made a mixture of 75,000,000 won at the new market price of 42,7570,000 won.

2) Defendant D

On March 5, 2012, the defendant completed the FJ manufacturing process of ‘R', which is a ice plant, and confirmed whether the products meet the standards and specifications prescribed by the Food Sanitation Act through self-quality inspection, and became aware of the fact that such products are found to be in conformity with the standards and specifications prescribed by the Food Sanitation Act.

In collusion with A, B, and C, the Defendant did not dispose of “R” products because it is well known that they should be discarded, but did not dispose of them. From April 18, 2012 to November 11, 2013, the Defendant produced “R” products, which do not comply with the above standards and specifications, and processed and used “R” products for sale by mixing approximately 17% of 4,727 g and mixing them with approximately 65,424, market price of 31,4868,288 won, as stated in the attached list II of crimes committed in the attached Table 1. From April 18, 2012 to mixing them with “R” products for sale by mixing them with “R” products, which are non-compliant with the standards and specifications, “R”, “S”, “M”, 45,750,000 won”, “160,0000 won, and 379,000,000 won.

3) Defendant E

After completing the FJ manufacturing process on March 31, 2014, the Defendant came to know that 'R' products are found to be in conformity with the standards and specifications prescribed by the Food Sanitation Act through self-quality inspection, and that 'R' products are found to be in conformity with the standards and specifications prescribed by the Food Sanitation Act.

The Defendant, in collusion with A, B, and C, did not discard “R” products because it is well known of the fact that they should be discarded, but did not dispose of them, and produced “R” products at Fjincheon Factory, which failed to meet the above standards and specifications, and used “R” for the purpose of sale by mixing approximately 10.7%, 59,302 and 36.28,590,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 for the purpose of sale, as stated in attached Table III, from April 3, 2014 to May 30, 2014; and made a combination of 30,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00,000.

4) Defendant F

From April 18, 2012 to May 30, 2014, the Defendant produced “R”, etc., which is an employee of the Defendant in the Fjin factory, as shown in the attached Table I, which is discovered in the Defendant’s business and failed to meet the standards and specifications set forth in the Food Sanitation Act, and manufactured 35,095 kilograms of products, such as “R”, “S”, “T”, “U”, and “V, for the purpose of selling new ice products by mixing them with a certain ratio of 5,00,70,06, total market value of KRW 2.85,727,894.

3. The judgment of the court below

For the following reasons, the lower court acquitted the Defendant pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act by deeming that all the facts charged in the instant case constituted a case where there is no proof of crime.

1) Defense Counsel's assertion

Article 7(4) of the Food Sanitation Act prohibits the sale and use of food for sale that do not meet the standards and standards. Here, the standard is not an intermediate product but a final product according to the Food Sanitation Act. Meanwhile, F, in the process of manufacturing ice, dismantled and re-processed the packages in a case where germs are detected by inspecting self-organism in the process of manufacturing ices, and then released only the products that are not detected by the same group through the inspection of the same group. The Defendants’ act is merely a kind of the process of manufacturing the products manufactured in F to conform to the provisions of the Food Sanitation Act, and the act of the Defendants is not against Article 7(4) of the Food Sanitation Act, since the products distributed in the F are merely the process of manufacturing the products to conform to the provisions of the Food Sanitation Act, and

2) Prosecutor’s assertion

The Defendants indicated the expiration date of distribution and re-processed products in the case where fracks were detected by controlling fracks, and re-processed them. At the time the Defendants completed the fracks inspection, the Defendants are deemed to have completed the fracks with a final product that does not require any further manufacturing process. The inside documents prepared by the Defendants also indicate that the product was a finished product before the fracks inspection. If the Defendants permitted the act of this case, it would result in the fact that the food manufacturers re-processing the inappropriate product repeatedly and finally do not go against the sanitary concept of the general consumers. This would result in extremely unfair consequences because it does not fit the sanitary concept of the general consumers.

B. Relevant statutes

Food Sanitation Act

Article 7 (Standards and Specifications concerning Foods or Food Additives)

(1) The Minister of Food and Drug Safety shall determine and publicly announce the following matters concerning foods or food additives for sale, if necessary for national health: Provided, That in cases of materials which may be indirectly transferred to foods when used for sterilizing or disinfecting apparatus, containers or packages, among food additives, only the ingredients thereof may be publicly announced:

1. Standards for the methods of manufacture, processing, use, cooking, or preservation;

2. Specifications concerning ingredients;

(2) The Minister of Food and Drug Safety may require the manufacturers or processors of foods or food additives (excluding additives which are chemical synthetics directly used for foods), the standards and specifications of which are not publicly announced pursuant to paragraph (1), to submit matters referred to in the subparagraphs of paragraph (1), and recognize such matters as the standards and specifications of such foods or food additives, until the standards and specifications under paragraph (1) are publicly announced after deliberation by the food-related testing and inspection agency designated by the Minister of Food and Drug Safety pursuant to Article 6 (3) 1 of the Act on Testing and Inspection in the Food and Drug Industry or by the testing and inspection agency prescribed by Ordinance of the Prime Minister pursuant to the proviso to

(3) Notwithstanding paragraphs (1) and (2), the standards and specifications for foods or food additives to be exported may follow the standards and specifications stipulated by importers.

(4) Foods or food additives, the standards and specifications of which are observed under paragraphs (1) and (2), shall be in accordance with those standards.

Food or food additives shall be manufactured, imported, processed, used, cooked, preserved, and shall not be sold or manufactured, imported, processed, used, cooked, stored, subdivided, transported, preserved, or displayed for the purpose of sale.

Article 14 (Code of Foods, etc.) The Minister of Food and Drug Safety shall prepare and distribute the code of food, etc., including the following standards:

1. Any of the following persons shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than five years or by a fine not exceeding 50 million won, or both:

1. A person who violates Article 7 (4) (including cases applicable mutatis mutandis under Article 88), 9 (4) (including cases applicable mutatis mutandis under Article 88), 13 (1) 2 through 5 or 19 (1);

§ 1. General

2. The specifications of terms are 20) the specifications of final products. The specifications of terms are 5; the standards and specifications by food; 29. Other food 16 ice 5.

(a) Other non-residents: must be in excess of the marked quantity;

(b) Inorganics: must be in excess of the indicated quantity; and

(c) Unit: must be a voice;

다. 이 사건 시리얼의 제조과정 F의 일반 시리얼 제조 과정은 별지 시리얼 제품의 제조 공정도(이하 '제조공정도'라고 한다)와 같다. F은 일반 시리얼 제품의 경우 1일 1회, 부재료가 포함되는 제품의 경우 1일 3회 내지 12회씩 개별포장 및 유통기한 날인 후 박스 포장 전단계의 과정에서 (1③ 또는 ④의 공정) 개별 제품 일부를 골라 대장균군 검사를 하고 그 결과가 나올 때까지 창고에 적재되어 있는 나머지 제품은 출고하지 않다가 대장균군 검사 결과 음성일 경우 제품을 출고하고, 대장균군 검사 결과 양성일 경우 제품의 포장을 해체하여 다시 최종 열처리공정(⑥ 내지 ⑦의 공정)에 투입하여 같은 과정을 거쳐 제품을 출고하고 있다. 이 사건에서 문제되는 부재료를 첨가한 시리얼 제품 중 아몬드, 코코넛칩, 야자가루, 압착귀리, 블루베리, 볶음쌀가루의 경우 최종 열처리 공정(⑦) 직전에 투입하고, 그래놀라와 건조파파야, 크랜배리는 최종 열처리 공정(⑦) 직후에 투입하는 방식으로 제조하되, 검사 결과 대장균군이 양성일 경우 위의 기본 공정과 같이 제품의 포장을 해체하여 모두 최종 열처리공정(⑥ 내지 ⑦의 공정)에 투입하여 같은 과정을 거쳐 제품을 출고하고 있다. 한편, 제조공정도의 ① 내지 ⑥의 공정은 모두 자동화 설비에 의하여 이루어지고 있다.

D. Determination

1) Article 7(4) of the Food Sanitation Act prohibits an act of selling or manufacturing, using, etc. food that does not meet the standards and specifications for sale, and Article 7(4) of the same Act prescribes that the Food Code enacted to determine the standards and specifications of food by delegation of the Food Sanitation Act requires that the same group of books shall be a voice for the products of ice, and the standard shall be deemed to mean that the products of ice are the last product.

In this case, there is no evidence that only fump was detected among the products distributed in the market by the Defendants. As alleged by the prosecutor, since the product constitutes final product and the act of re-processing the product constitutes the use of final product prohibited by Article 7(4) of the Food Sanitation Act or its entire manufacturing process constitutes automated equipment, it is necessary to complete only packaging, and as a result, it is anticipated to conduct an inspection of fump for a certain period after completion of individual packaging for all products, and as a result, it is difficult to find the facts charged in the instant case as to whether the product in such state can not be seen as the final product because it is not provided for distribution to the general consumers unless it is determined by the voice.

2) In light of the following circumstances, the starting ice re-processed by the defendants does not constitute a final product in violation of the prohibition of Article 7(4) of the Food Sanitation Act, and there is no evidence to support that the defendants used the food for sale in violation of the standard otherwise.

① The Ministry of Food and Drug Safety (hereinafter referred to as the "Food and Drug Safety")’s guide on food re-processing is easy to be known, and the Korea recognized support center in charge of the HACCP certification is also expected to re-processing food. In addition, the inquiry house to frequently ask food in the field of food distributed from the Food and Drug Administration in 2010, as to whether re-processing an inappropriate product can be re-processed as a result of self-quality inspection, where the former product of the same manufacturing unit is not released without being released from the same manufacturing unit, and where a product can be re-processed as a suitable normal product if it is relatively simple re-processing process, which is not directly related to sanitation and safety. On the other hand, the Act and subordinate statutes prohibiting re-processing of food is not applicable until the occurrence of the instant food re-processing, and it is also inappropriate for a foreign company to notify or re-processing the product in accordance with the revised Enforcement Rule of the Food and Drug Safety Act to prohibit the re-processing of the product from using it as a specific food product.

② The legislative purpose of the Food Sanitation Act is to prevent sanitary harm caused by food (Article 1 of the Food Sanitation Act). Article 7 of the Food Sanitation Act by embodying the same sets the standards and specifications for food and additives, and the reasons for setting the above standards and specifications is to prevent the provision of food contrary to the standards to consumers. Even if the last package is completed, as long as it goes through the inspection process after the completion, it cannot be deemed to be a final product whose manufacturing process is completed at least in the subsequent stage, and there is no risk that a product may be supplied to consumers in breach of the standards and specifications. In addition, there is no reasonable reason to completely prohibit re-processing solely on the ground that all acts of dismantling and re-processing a product which has completed the last package do not cause any sanitary harm that may be treated differently from re-processing at the prior stage.

③ In all food, there may be small amounts of microbes, and in the event that ices are manufactured using pyros as raw materials in this case, there may be cocopis in the state of raw materials. Accordingly, the food copis requires only that there is no wump scal group in the final product without demanding that there is no wump scal group. The food copis manufacturing enterprise is undergoing the process of removing microbials through the final heat treatment process, and it cannot be deemed that there is a sanitary hazard compared to the case where the process was not conducted twice only on the ground that it did not go through two occasions.

④ If it is deemed that it is prohibited to dismantle and reprocessing a package as long as the package is completed, it is one of the specifications that non-defluences and inorganics are more than indicated quantities in the case of ices. After the completion of the last package, the inspection results show that the non-defluences and inorganics are not sufficient to punish the addition, and such an act is unreasonable in that it does not cause any harm to the consumer’s sanitation.

(5) Although, in cases of certain food, re-processing may not be permitted for sanitary reasons after completing the manufacturing process itself, it does not seem reasonable to prohibit all cases.

4. Judgment of the court below

If the above circumstances presented by the court below are examined as follows based on the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the court below, the fact-finding and judgment by the court below is justified, and there is no error of mistake of facts or of misapprehension of legal principles as pointed out by the prosecutor in the court below. Accordingly, the prosecutor's assertion is rejected.

(a)the definition of the final product;

According to Article 7 (1) of the Food Sanitation Act, the Minister of Food and Drug Safety needs for public health. The Minister of Food and Drug Safety shall establish and publicly announce the standards for manufacturing, processing, using, cooking, and preserving foods or food additives for sale and the standards for ingredients, and Article 7 (4) of the Food and Drug Sanitation Act provides that foods or food additives, the standards and specifications of which are determined under paragraph (1) of the same Article

It shall be manufactured, imported, processed, used, cooked, or preserved, and foods or food additives that do not meet the standards and specifications shall not be sold or manufactured, imported, processed, used, cooked, stored, subdivided, transported, preserved, or displayed for sale.

According to the delegation of Article 14 of the Food Sanitation Act, the Food Code enacted to determine the food standards and specifications requires "to be a voice for ice products" as the standard, and its standard means "the standards for final products". On the other hand, the Food and Drug Safety Agency pre-announces the "Public Notice (Public Notice) on August 2, 2016 of the Food Standards and Specifications" in order to collect opinions from the people in advance in amending the "standards and Specifications for final products" in accordance with Article 7 (1) of the Food Sanitation Act. The "final products" in the Public Notice (Public Notice) means products or products in circulation after completion of processing and packaging, etc., and the "standards" means "the standards for final products" and "the standards are clearly defined as "the standards for final products."

In manufacturing and processing foods for sale, the timing of release may vary after completion of the process and packing process, etc. according to the type of individual food and the process planned and implemented by the relevant business entity that manufactures and processes such foods. Therefore, whether such foods are final products or not should be determined at any stage by specifically examining the process of manufacturing and processing the relevant business entity that manufactures and processes individual food.

B. F’s manufacturing process of the instant riice F of the instant riice F is identical to that of the manufacturing process of the instant riice products, and the manufacturing process level 1 through 6 is all carried out by the automated equipment.

F The F receives samples to conduct an inspection of cryprym in the cryp packing stage after sealing the cryprym cryprym cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp. In other words, the process of the remaining cryp cryp cryp cryp, in addition to the received samples, is being kept in the automatic warehouse once after the automatic transfer stage.

As such, in manufacturing and processing ices, F manages it by an electronic system through a thorough control via an electronic system to determine the suitability (audio determination) of the relevant sampling through a self-quality inspection, only if the determination of suitability (audio determination) has been made with respect to the relevant sampling products, and thus, it can only be released from the sample with an electronic system so that it can be shipped out. Thus, insofar as the suitability determination is not determined in the self-quality inspection, it cannot be an absolute waiting atmosphere for sale, and thus, it may not be shipped out for sale. In this case, the appropriate ices can be converted into the site where the shipment can be possible, and the quality inspection results in the self-quality inspection shall be managed so that it can be sold as a product by converting it into the product, and if the determination of the training of fys has been made, it shall be conducted again by demolishing the product packaging

(c) Inspection processes as part of manufacturing processes;

A business operator who manufactures and processes foods, etc. under Article 31 of the Food Sanitation Act shall inspect whether foods, etc. manufactured or processed are in conformity with the standards and specifications under Article 7 or 9, by providing that food manufacturers are obliged to conduct a self-quality inspection on products that can be sold (sales) at least once a month. The self-quality inspection under the above provision refers to inspections conducted under the status of final products in order to prevent harm under the Food Sanitation Act in manufacturing foods. In addition to the self-quality inspection under the above provision, it cannot be deemed that the preparation of the inspection process is entirely prohibited for food manufacturers to conduct a self-quality inspection as one of the manufacturing processes. Rather, it is desirable and reasonable to add such inspection process as one of the manufacturing processes.

In this regard, the process prepared by the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy as Korean Industrial Standards Board

The term "fairness" means the process of changing raw materials, materials, components or products, and the process of indicating the order of priority for each element process and the process of elements thereof, and the process of "fairness" is divided into processing, transportation, refining and inspection according to its function or condition, and the body is divided into storage and delay, and the body is divided into a quantity inspection and quality inspection." Thus, the inspection also gives a separate urban symbol by clarifying that it is a part of the process. As such, even in the process urban signs prepared by the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy as an assistant member of the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy, the process of inspection, including quality inspection, is regarded as one process.

D. Around June 2010, F’s additional food processing process of the instant inspection (self-quality inspection) conducted a quality inspection of foods distributed in the market in accordance with the 200-scale Food Hazardous Materials Concentration Control Plan. From the above inspection, F was determined to have wK and BL cultivated woms. Accordingly, F was issued an administrative disposition regarding the said two products from the food processing plant, i.e., 15-day suspension of manufacturing, i., e., e., i., e., e., e., e., e., g., e., g., e., g., e., g., e., g., g., g., g., g., e., g., g., e., g., g., g., e., g., e., g., e. g., g. g., g., e., e., g., e., e., e.

E. After affixing KaNN and sealing the expiration date, the inspection process need to be recognized to have a system that manages unsuitable products after the above BB case in order to prevent shipment of such products. Accordingly, prior to determining whether to release opice as an essential process for manufacturing opice, the inspection process was conducted.

However, if the F's process of manufacturing ice is operated as an automation system and the factory is operated only once, a series of processes are continuously carried out. In other words, a series of processes are automatically carried out to the packaging of riice, X-ray detection, the movement of logistics warehouses, and the loading of logistics warehouses.

As such, it takes about 2-6 hours to inspect crypium manufacturing process and sampling using an automation system, and if a crypium is kept without packing crypium until the result of the inspection results, it is highly likely that crypium might pollute microbes. As such, F collects samples and conducts self-quality inspection at the stage after the packing of crypice and the expiration date of distribution period for crypryp, and the manufacturing process for the remaining crypryp (2-6 days) was conducted in accordance with the automatic process and stored in the logistics warehouse during the inspection period. By adopting the method of storing crypryp (2-6 days) in accordance with the result of the self-quality inspection, it manages crypryp that is suitable for the result of the self-quality inspection so that it can be sold as a product by converting it into a factory site and manufactures crypryp that is not in compliance with the standards through additional process.

On the other hand, F did not adopt the method of self-quality inspection on the packing phase or the packing phase of the ice product for the following reasons or the actual effectiveness of the products.

① The method of collecting samples and waiting for the period of time before packing the result of the inspection requires approximately two to six days to six days. If a person keeps a gyeast without packing the gyeast until the result of the inspection, it may cause a risk of micro-organism pollution, and if a person keeps a gyeast for a long time without packing the gyeast, it may cause a problem that the head of the gyeast will become the head of the gyeast-do, and even if the result of the quality inspection is determined appropriate, it cannot achieve the purpose of release of appropriate products, such as the progress of the inspection atmosphere and its subsequent process, which makes it impossible to determine whether there is any inappropriate reason, and rather, the risk of manufacturing improper products is high.

② The method of collecting samples to be inspected and waiting the remainder of opice in the form of packing after packaging for a self-quality inspection without the due date of distribution is an automatic system until opportune is loaded in a logistics warehouse, as seen in the F’s manufacturing process, as seen in the F’s manufacturing process, and the F’s automatic system is automatically implemented until opportune is loaded in each opportune. Thus, in order to wait for an inspection only after carrying out a package, the process should be cut off at the stage of the interior packing, and it is impossible to be effective as such, such as the possibility of being contaminated by fire in the inner packaging for about two to six days, which is waiting for the inspection.

F. After the instant case, the Act and subordinate statutes directly prohibit newly established enterprises from using or reprocessing food as raw materials in cases where it is confirmed that such food is inappropriate as the result of self-inspection conducted by the newly established enterprises under the provision that prohibits the use of such food as raw materials after it was confirmed to be inappropriate as the result of the self-inspection conducted by the enterprises after the instant case, are not included until the instant case occurs. The Act and subordinate statutes newly established on October 21, 2015 in attached Table 23-I. of the Enforcement Rule of the Food Sanitation Act (amended by Ordinance of the Prime Minister No. 1. 4p. 3 of the Food Sanitation Act, such as food manufacturing and processing business, etc.). The Act and the Enforcement Rule of the Food Sanitation Act amended on October 21, 2015, stipulate that the food shall not be used as raw materials after it is confirmed to be inappropriate as the result of self-inspection under Article 31(1) of the Food Sanitation Act or self-inspection conducted by other business operators, and were subject to the administrative disposition on the destruction of the relevant food product (attached).

G. Sub-committee

As seen above, food standards for sale stipulated in Article 7 (1) of the Food Sanitation Act refer to final products, and final products refer to products or products in circulation in a state in which the processing and packaging, etc. can be shipped out after completion. In the case of the ice of this case of F, even if the ice of this case was stored in an automatic logistics warehouse with packaging and sealing as well as the ice of this case, even if the ice of this case was stored in the automatic logistics warehouse, it cannot be deemed as final products since the ice of this case at the stage of quality inspection is not in a state in which it can still be shipped out, but in a state in which the shipment is prohibited.

5. Conclusion

Therefore, the prosecutor's appeal against the defendants is without merit and it is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.

The presiding judge, judge and branch judge

Judges Dooman

Judge Lee Jong-hoon