209 Highest 101 Violation of the Agricultural Product Quality Control Act

1. A;

2. B

3. C.

4. D;

5. E.

6. F;

7. G.

8. H;

9. I

10. J

11. K Agricultural Cooperatives;

Park Jong-bea

Attorney L (for the defendant)

2, 2011.22

Defendants are not guilty.

1. Facts charged;

Defendant A, as the president of the K Agricultural Cooperative in Gangnam-gun M (hereinafter referred to as the “KFF”), was in charge of the direct trade sales business of Korea Agricultural Cooperative in Hanwon-gun M, and Defendant A managed funds, such as purchase price and sales price, related to the aforementioned direct trade sales business as the former director of the KF. Defendant B, as the director of the KF, was in charge of the above direct trade sales business, managed the status of purchase, transportation, sales by the team leader, etc., Defendant C, D, E, F, G, H, and J operated the direct trade sales office at the Seoul and the branch of the Korea Agricultural Cooperative in Seoul Special Metropolitan Area, respectively, as the contracting director of the KFF, and Defendant CF was a corporation established for the purpose of selling agricultural and livestock products.

Defendant A, I, and B had been engaged in a business of selling rains born and raised in the crossing-gun from around July 2006 to 00, using the 1st century's store NF branches, 0 agricultural cooperatives, and NA branch offices prior to the merger into NAF branches. However, at the time, the Crossing-gun Livestock Cooperatives (hereinafter referred to as the "Masung Livestock Cooperatives") had a strong amount of money raised in the Crossing-gun based on the lux natural environment that was bad and contaminated, and had a high-quality brand image that was fluxed in the 20th century, and had a high-quality brand image that was fluxated and fluxed in the 20th century, and had a high-quality brand sales volume of the NAF-gun, and had a nationwide brand of the NAF-gun. The 20th century received an order from the NAN to supply the remainder of the NAF-based products to the public.

A. Defendant A, I, B, and C

As above, even if the Defendants conspired to sell livestock products with marks likely to cause confusion as to their origin and disguised origin, Defendant A, I, B, from January 1, 2008 to February 28, 2009, purchased small 64 cm produced and raised from brokerage Q, etc. in other areas than Chungcheong Gun, such as Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, etc., at the request of Defendant C, and then slaughter them from Posi-si, at the request of Defendant C. C. The Defendant C had supplied approximately 3251km market price of approximately KRW 56 million in Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Nowon-gu, 700,000,000,000 from 70,000,000,0000 won to 30,000,000,000 won from 75,000,000 won from 70,000,000 won from 70,000,000 won from 176,000.

B. Defendant A, I, B, and D

As above, even if the Defendants conspired to sell livestock products with marks likely to cause confusion as to their origin and disguised origin, Defendants A, I, B, from January 1, 2008 to February 28, 2009, purchased small 72 mars produced and raised in other areas than king Q, etc. from brokerage, Q, etc. in the middle of brokerage, etc., and slaughtered them in R, at the request of Defendant D, and supplied them at any time. Defendant D, at the direct trade store located in Seongbuk AU, Seongbuk-gu, Seoul, with the direction of sale of high 42 million won at the market price of approximately 70,000,000,000 won, 170,000,000,000 won, 70,000,000 won, 70,000,000 won, and 17,000,000,000 won, and 17,000,000 won,00.

As above, even if the Defendants conspired to sell livestock products with marks likely to cause confusion as to their origin and disguised origin, they shall not sell them. However, Defendants A, I, B, from January 1, 2008 to February 28, 2009, purchased 140 mars produced and raised from brokerage Q, etc. in other areas than Chungcheong Gun, such as Chungcheongnam-si, Chungcheongnam-si, and then slaughtered them from RR located in the original city at the request of Defendant E. Defendant E. Defendant E from time to time. Defendant E entered 12,289 mar market value of 250,000,000 won from 70 marb,000,000,000 won from 150 mar,000 to 150 marb,000,000,000 won from 370 mar,000 to 130 mar,000,000.

(d) Defendant A, I, B, and F

As above, even if the Defendants conspired to sell livestock products with marks likely to cause confusion as to their origin and disguised origin, Defendants A, I, B, from January 1, 2008 to February 28, 2009, purchased a cattle of 100 cm produced and raised in other areas than the breadth-gun, such as Q, etc. from brokerage, Q, etc. from the small brokerage, and slaughtered them in RP located in the city of Won-si, and supplied them from time to time at the request of Defendant F, and Defendant F, at the direct trade sale place of Han-gu BB located in Seowon-gu, Seoul, one of which is 100 g, 70 g, 1000,000,000 won, 300,000 won, 70 g,000,000,000 won, 70 g,000,000 won, 70 g,000,000.

E. Defendant A, I, B, and G

As above, even if the Defendants conspired to sell livestock products with a mark that may cause confusion about the country of origin and a disguised sale of the country of origin of livestock products, the Defendants: (a) purchased from January 1, 2008 to February 28, 2009, a small-scale Q, etc., 85 cm produced and raised in other areas than the breadth-gun, such as Chuncheon Si, from the middle-scale Q, etc., from the middle-scale Q, etc.; and (b) slaughter them from the RR located in the nuclear trade store located in Gyeyang-gu, Incheon, at the request of the Defendant G, from time to time; (c) Defendant G kept the former part of 300,000 won at the market price of 350,000 won of local beef at the direct trade store located in Gyeyang-gu, Incheon, which is approximately KRW 70,000,000,000 from the market price of 150,000,000 won, and entered it in the attached 281707.

F. Defendant A, I, B, and H

As above, even if the Defendants conspired to sell livestock products with marks likely to cause confusion as to their origin and disguised origin, Defendants A, I, B, from September 23, 2008 to February 28, 2009, purchased 12 mars produced and raised from brokerage Q, etc. in an area other than the Geng-gun, such as Gyeonggi-si, and then slaughtered them in RR located in the original city at the request of Defendant H, and Defendant H were occasionally supplied. Defendant H installed an electronic sign board at approximately KRW 17 million in the free trade store located in Yangcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and 90,000,000,000,000 won, which is KRW 17,000,000,000 from 20,000,000,000 won, and found it from 20,000,000,000 won, 20,000,000 won, 20,000.

As above, even if the Defendants conspired to sell livestock products with marks likely to cause confusion as to their origin and disguised origin, the Defendants, A, I, B, from January 1, 2008 to September 22, 2008, purchased 10 mars produced and raised from brokerage Q, etc. in other areas than Gyeonggi-gun, such as Gyeonggi-si, and then slaughtered them in RR located in the original city at the request of Defendant J. 1, Defendant J. 2, at the direct trade store located in Yangcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and supplied them from time to time at the request of Defendant J. 1, 1, and B, at approximately 17 million won at the market price of 70 mar 1,021 mar 20,000,000 won, and found them from the 70 mar 2,000 mar mar 7,000 mar mar 1,000 mar 2,000.

(h) Defendant KFF

Although a person is not likely to cause confusion as to the origin of livestock products that had to indicate the origin and a disguised sale of the country of origin of the livestock products, the Defendant CFF, the representative of the Defendant CF, from January 1, 2008 to February 28, 2009, slaughtered approximately KRW 95,177 kilograms of beef to unspecified consumers and acquired approximately KRW 13,5730,000,000 from January 1, 200 to February 28, 200.

2. Determination

(a) Status of the birth, breeding, and slaughter of beef sold by the Defendants;

(1) In full view of the Defendants’ respective legal statements, Q, T, U, V, W, X, Y, and Z’s respective legal statements, seizure records, and respective internal reports, each of the following facts can be acknowledged.

(A) Q, T, U, V, W, X, Y, and Z (hereinafter collectively referred to as “ Q, etc.”) have been engaged in the business of purchasing litigations conducted in the areas other than the Crossing-gun, including the Chungcheongbuk-gun, the Gangwon-gun, etc. from January 1, 2008, which was the starting date of the crime in which the indictment was written.

(B) Q, etc. had a stable in the Crossing-gun, purchased a lawsuit born in an area outside the Crossing-gun, went into one’s stable, and raised at one’s stable for a certain period. The major factors to determine the period of raising were the monthly order of the cattle to be purchased at the time of purchase, the rate of increase in the body of cattle, and the request for sale of consumers. Even in cases where Q, etc. purchased a lawsuit sufficiently raised to the extent that it can be promptly slaughtered, as seen above, to recover the body of cattle reduced in the course of moving the lawsuit to the Crossing-gun outside the Crossing-gun, raised at least 20 days from its stable in the Crossing-gun, and ② in the case of a lawsuit whose age does not reach the end of the month at the time of purchase, raised for a maximum of 20 months until the date of full appearance.

(C) Defendant A, a president of the NA, Defendant I, and the chief of the division, Defendant B, the president of the NA, purchased a lawsuit from Qu, etc. from around 2008 to early 2009, to be raised from a stable located in the Crossing-gun to about 20 days to 20 months, and supplied it to the SA Co., Ltd. (the representative AA, and the head office of the Gu on March 30, 2010, after the instant case, transferred the head office to 'GG AB’), which was located in the NA, the head of the sales team, and supplied it to the Defendant C, D, E, F, G, H, and J. (the sales team).

(D) The head of the above sales team, such as Defendant C, sold the beef slaughtered through the above process to the effect that the country of origin is 's Crossing' as stated in the facts charged.

(2) On the other hand, each statement of the witness AC and AD and each report of internal investigation is not sufficient to recognize that Q, etc. purchased in a region other than the breadth, without raising the lawsuit from 20 to 20 months from Crossing, immediately slaughtered, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise. (c) The meaning of "place of origin in livestock products" is not different. The meaning of "place of origin" in livestock products. The meaning of "place of origin" is not different.

(1) A person who violates the provisions of Articles 34-2 and 17 (1) of the former Agricultural Products Quality Control Act (amended by Act No. 9667 of May 8, 2009) shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than 7 years or by a fine not exceeding 100 million won, or both penalties may be imposed.

(1) Any person who sells or processes the movables, objects or processed goods thereof, which have the place of origin indicated pursuant to Articles 15 (1) and 16 (1), or who sells the agricultural products subject to the indication of genetically modified agricultural products, shall be prohibited from committing any act falling under any of the following subparagraphs:

1. An act of falsely marking the place of origin or genetically modified agricultural products, or of making an indication that may lead to misunderstanding thereon;

3. Selling agricultural products under the disguised country of origin, or selling agricultural products or processed agricultural products bearing a mark of origin mixed with other agricultural products or processed agricultural products, or storing or displaying such products for sale (referring to the definitions of "agricultural products" and "place of origin");

Article 2 (Definitions of Terms used in this Act) of the former Agricultural Products Quality Control Act (amended by Act No. 9759 of Jun. 9, 2009) (Definitions) is defined 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;

The term "other by-products as prescribed by the Presidential Decree" in subparagraph 1 of Article 2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Agricultural Products Quality Control Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 21876 of December 14, 2009) means the meat, eggs and other by-products of wild animals raised.

Article 2 of the former Agricultural Products Quality Control Act (amended by Act No. 10022, Feb. 4, 2010) (Definitions) (Definition) The definitions of terms used in this Act are as follows:

10. The term "place of origin" means the State or region in which agricultural products are produced or collected;

【Provisions Relating to Origin Labeling】

Article 15 of the former Agricultural Products Quality Control Act (Amended by Act No. 10022, Feb. 4, 2010);

(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 whose country of origin is marked pursuant to paragraph (1) shall indicate the country of origin on the raw materials of the relevant agricultural products and processed agricultural products.

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

Article 24 (Method of Marking of Place of Origin, etc.) (1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Quality Control of Agricultural Products Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 21805, Nov. 2, 2009) (1) The method of indicating the place of origin under 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, Do (hereinafter referred to as "City/Do") or Si/Gun/autonomous Gu (hereinafter referred to as "Si/Gun/Gu") which produces domestically produced agricultural products, etc. shall be indicated;

2. In cases of imported agricultural products, etc., the country of origin shall be indicated in accordance with 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 indicating the name of a City/Do or the name of a Si/Gun/Gu: The determination of origin of imported agricultural products, etc. under Article 15 (3) of the Act shall be based on the criteria for origin under Article 61 of the Enforcement Decree of the Foreign Trade Act: Provided, That where imported agricultural products, etc. are processed in Korea, the origin of the relevant processed agricultural products shall be deemed the origin of imported agricultural products or imported processed agricultural products provided for the relevant processed products);

(2) Interpretation of the provision

(A) The term "place of origin" under the Agricultural Products Quality Control Act includes livestock products in the country or region where agricultural products were produced or gathered. However, even if the origin of the beef sold by the Defendants is not the breadth, the facts charged in the instant case purported to indicate the origin as a breadth by the Defendants, which might lead to confusion with the country of origin, and sell them through a disguised indication of the origin and the country of origin. In the end, it is problematic whether the country of origin of the beef sold by the Defendants, i.e., the country of origin of the beef sold by the Defendants, i., the country of production of the livestock products, is the breadth. Therefore, the meaning of the term "production of livestock products"

(B) Livestock products are produced by the birth of the animal and the slaughter of the animal for a certain period of time, and unlike agricultural products, are relatively easy and frequent to move to an area outside the place of birth at the breeding stage.

Therefore, the issue is how to determine the ‘production' of livestock products based on what factors are in birth, raising, and slaughter. Even in consideration of the characteristics of livestock products, it is questionable whether the origin was expressed in a single area where the livestock products were born, raised, slaughtered, or indicated in an area outside the region where the livestock products were slaughtered, raised, slaughtered, or all or part of the livestock products were produced in different areas, and if the origin was indicated in another area unrelated to the birth, raising, and slaughter, it constitutes a false indication of origin under the Agricultural Products Quality Control Act.

However, in a case where the whole or part of the livestock products were born, raised, and slaughtered in different areas, the determination of the production site may be made through an agreement as to how to determine the production site. In a case where the maximum interpretation is made in consultation, the area can be seen as the production site only when both the birth, breeding, and slaughter were conducted in a single area. In a case where the maximum interpretation is made in light of the foregoing, it is possible to establish various standards as to which the area can be seen as the production site if all or part of the birth, breeding, and slaughter were conducted

However, as seen above, there are provisions on the conversion of origin in cases where imported livestock products are raised for a certain period in the Enforcement Decree of the Agricultural Products Quality Control Act and the Ministry for Food, Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, but there are no separate standards for cases where livestock products are raised or slaughtered in an area outside the place of origin.

(C) If so, in light of the above characteristics of livestock products and the fact that there is a provision on the conversion of the country of origin for the livestock products, if all or part of the livestock products were to be born, raised, and slaughtered in different domestic areas, it cannot be interpreted by limiting the production site to ‘explosion' or ‘explosion and breeding' or ‘explosion, breeding, and slaughter' or to a single area where all the products were born, raised, and slaughtered, as long as there is no separate standard for determining the production site to some extent, it cannot be interpreted by arbitrarily establishing the standard, or by applying the provision on the action against the imported livestock products to the extent that there is more than 6 months, it is not permissible for the defendants to interpret it based on analogical interpretation or expanded interpretation to the extent that there is no separate standard for determining the production site to some extent.

(1) Prosecutor's assertion

A prosecutor charged the Defendants with the violation of the Agricultural Products Quality Control Act for the purpose that the Defendants’ sale of beef born in the area outside the breadthGun, namely, the country of origin, and the country of origin, based on the premise that the produced beef was both the place of birth or the place of birth and the place of origin are a single area in which they were raised. (In addition, the prosecutor argued that the birth and the raising of beef sold by the Defendants were conducted in the place of origin of the cattle, such as the Gangwon-gun, the Gangwon-gun, etc., and that the slaughter was conducted in the area outside the breadth, and that all the birth, raising, and slaughter were conducted in the area outside the breadth, and that the Defendants were raised for about 20 days in the area outside the breadth, even though Q, etc. in which the Defendants sold the lawsuit to the Defendants were raised, this is not for the purpose of restoring the body of cattle in the course of movement of reduced cattle, but for temporary slaughter, but for the purpose of restoring it.)

(2) Determination

(A) (1) As seen above, beef sold by the Defendants were born and raised in an area outside the breadth, at least 20 days, and were slaughtered in the original city near the breadth-gun, and the period of raising in the breadth-gun is at least 20 to 20 months, and (2) a part of the cattle purchased by Q, etc. in an area outside the breadth-gun was slaughtered immediately after being raised for about 20 days from the breadth-gun, and the purpose of raising for about 20 days was to recover the body reduced during the movement. However, even if a short-term raising for recovery in the body is sufficiently possible, it cannot be deemed that a short-term raising constitutes part of the slaughter as a matter of course, which is naturally incidental to the slaughter in the process of slaughter (i.e., the period of raising from the breadth-gun sold by the Defendants cannot be deemed to constitute a specific number of cattle to the extent of 200 to 200 to 200 to 200 to 200 days).

(B) If so, beef sold by the defendants was conducted in the area outside the breadth, but only in the area outside the breadth, part of the 'livestock' was conducted in the area outside the breadth, and in such a case, it cannot be interpreted as limited to the single area where the 'product' or the 'product' was made in the breadth, and as long as the part of the 'livestock' sold by the defendants was made in the breadth, i.e., the criteria to reflect the fact that part of the 'livestock' was made in the breadth, i.e., if the livestock products were raised in the breadth for a certain extent, the 'livestock' can be viewed as the 'livestock' if the livestock products were raised in the breadth for a certain period of time, and there is no criteria to change the country of origin in the case of the regional movement of the livestock products in the Republic of Korea, it cannot be concluded that it was not produced in the breadth.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the facts charged in this case constitute a case where there is no proof of crime, and thus, the Defendants are acquitted under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act

Judges Min Il-soo

1) Article 2-1 of the Guidelines for Origin Labeling of Agricultural Products (Public Notice of the Ministry for Food, Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries No. 2007-48) 25(2) of the Enforcement Decree

The origin of agricultural products produced by transplanting, cultivating, or raising imported agricultural products in the Republic of Korea among the criteria for origin determination;

The criteria for judgment shall be subject to the criteria separately prescribed in attached Table 2, and the [Attachment Table 2] shall be born of livestock.

Where a person was slaughtered in the Republic of Korea after importing from a country, only the specified period of raising shall expire.

Mountainous district change. EX1 / In the case of cattle, the breeding country shall be deemed to be a breeding country in the case of cattle breeding country (domestic) for at least six months.

The country of birth was defined as the country of origin in the case of raising less than six months.

2) On November 2, 2009, after the occurrence of the instant case, the former Enforcement Decree of the Agricultural Products Quality Control Act (Presidential Decree No. 11, Aug. 11, 2010)

An agricultural product under Article 25 (4) of the Act shall be transplanted or moved pursuant to subparagraph 1 of paragraph (1) of the same Article.

Where it is difficult to determine origin due to such reasons, detailed criteria for determination shall be determined and publicly notified by the Minister

(c)"until now, in the case of regional movement of livestock products in Korea, prior to their origin;

There was no specific standard for refund.