The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

1. The summary of the facts charged is a corporation established for the purpose of retailing and wholesale business of livestock products.

No person who produces, processes, ships, or sells agricultural and fishery products or the processed products thereof, the place of origin of which is required to be labeled, or stores or displays them for the purpose of sale shall place a false indication of the place of origin or place a mark likely to cause confusion therewith.

Nevertheless, from January 16, 2016 to July 7, 2016, D, an employee of the Defendant, purchased a total of KRW 1,080 km (market price of KRW 9,921,00) 259.8 km (market price of KRW 2,192,070), total of KRW 1,340.38 g, market price of KRW 12,13,070, and at the above establishment, D purchased a total of KRW 1,000 for the foregoing period from January 16, 2016 to July 7, 2016, sold 1,080 g 1,080 g 1,000 g 16,50 g 16,50 g g 16,50 g 70 g 1,50 g 1,50 g g 4,05 g m.

As above, Defendant D violated the Defendant’s duty.

2. The key issue of the instant case is whether D, an employee of the Defendant, exercised considerable care and supervision over the pertinent business in order to prevent the Defendant from violating the country of origin labeling.

However, in light of the following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this court, the Defendant exercised due care and supervision, such as providing education to prevent the violation of the country of origin labeling against D at the time.

It is reasonable to view it.

A. Examining the investigation process of the instant case, it was stated to the effect that D was subject to investigation due to the crackdown on the violation of the country of origin labeling and all of its crimes were recognized, and during that process, the Defendant failed to receive education on the violation of the country of origin labeling from

(f) a statement.

D, however, this Court.