A defendant shall be punished by a fine of 500,000 won.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant is a person who operates a mutual task of “C” in South-gu, South-gu, Seoul.

No person who sells or provides agricultural and fishery products or the processed products thereof after cooking shall make a false indication of the place of origin, or place a mark likely to cause confusion therewith.

From April 1, 2017 to April 20, 2017, the Defendant indicated the origin of agricultural and fishery products as a U.S. dollars on the outer side of the head of Hoba and Hobabag and marked the origin of the head of Hobag in the U.S., thereby making it possible to confuse the origin of agricultural and fishery products, even though he/she manufactured and sold the head of Hobags with the head of the U.S. dollars within the said business site.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement of the defendant in the second public trial records;

1. A statement of the detection;

1. Application of statutes on site photographs;

1. Article 14 (1) and Article 6 (1) 1 of the Act on Origin Labeling of Agricultural and Fishery Products (excluding punishment) concerning facts constituting an offense and Article 14 (1) and Article 6 (1) 1 of the same Act;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. Determination as to the assertion by the Defendant and his/her defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. As to the assertion that no intention had been made

A. All of the U.S., LU, and North Korea indicated in accordance with the reply of the viewing public official of the astronomic't indicate the origin of the assertion.

There was no intention on the fact that there was no awareness of illegality and there was no intention on the fact that it was an act of making indications likely to cause confusion.

B. The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this court, namely, ① the Defendant was aware of the fact that erroneously indicating the origin constitutes a violation of the law, ② the Defendant, who mainly used the U.S. head, asked the Defendant about the method of indicating the origin in the case of the astronomical Viewing in light of the fact that the U.S. head’s quality was deteriorated during the 10th century, and then asked the Defendant about the method of indicating the origin in the case of the astronomical Viewing.