logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 울산지방법원 2017.06.16 2017노426
식품위생법위반
Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

Reasons

1. The transportation of frozen fishery products by the defendant to the summary of the grounds for appeal by the prosecutor is the transportation business of foods that are likely to be deteriorated or deteriorated as provided for in the main sentence of Article 21 (4) of the Enforcement Decree of the Food Sanitation Act, and it is subject to reporting on the transportation business of foods under Article 37 (4)

Nevertheless, the court below found the defendant not guilty on the ground that the defendant's act "to transport food for sale at the place of business of the relevant business operator" in the proviso of Article 21 subparagraph 4 of the Enforcement Decree of the Food Sanitation Act is not subject to reporting of food transportation business. The court below erred by misunderstanding the facts and misunderstanding of legal principles.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is that the Defendant runs a fishery products distribution business, such as wholesale and retail supply of fishery products with the trade name “E” from Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-gu.

Any person who intends to engage in food transportation business (business of sanitary transportation of foods that are vulnerable to decomposition, such as beverages that can directly drink or fish birds and products processed therefrom), shall report to the head of the competent Si/Gun/Gu, etc. after meeting certain facilities standards, such as transportation facilities, tea facilities, teas, offices, etc.

그럼에도 불구하고 피고인은 2011. 1. 1. 경부터 2013. 6. 25. 경까지 위 사업장에서 베이비 갑 오징어 롤, 가리비, 새우 살, 홍합 살, 쭈꾸미, 낙지, 바지락 등 냉동 수산물을 냉동탑 차 ‘F’ 등 2대를 이용하여 울산 시내 60여 곳의 음식점에 운반하여 도 소매로 유통하는 등 시설기준을 제대로 갖추지 아니하고 2012년도 연간 20억 원 상당의 매출을 올리는 식품 운반업을 영위하면서 관할 울산시 남구 청장에게 식품 운반업 신고를 하지 않았다.

B. The judgment of the court below is that the defendant's transporting active fish at the buyer's request while selling freezing fishery products for the purpose of selling it at the operator's place of business.

arrow