Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 15 million.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant is a person who operates an agricultural product mail order business in the name of "C," from Cheongbuk-gun B.

No person shall make a false indication of origin or make an indication that may cause confusion as to the origin.

Nevertheless, the defendant from March 3, 2015 to the same year.

5. By November, 201, the E market located within Ansan-si, Adong-si, for the purchase of the Korea Industrial Complex and 213,000 km (including the Clean Station and 42,100 km) produced from the North Korean Industrial Complex, and 100,820 km (10km 10km 10,082 boxes) among the above departments, excluding the Clean Company, from March 3, 2015 to June 5, 2015, were sold to KRW 281,287,80 in total through the Internet mail order site, and the origin was stated in the “Sash” and the “Sash” in the “Sash” and the “Sash” in the product information, with the content that all the above four items were produced in the Clean Company.

Accordingly, the defendant committed an act of falsely indicating the country of origin or an act of making an indication that may cause confusion.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. A document certifying the preparation of the F;

1. Investigation report (specific amount of violation and amount of sale);

1. Details of apologys and sales specifications, Internet mail order (a rooftop, Gmarket, mail office, and cube);

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes and 16 copies of the screen screen by capturing up the country of origin labeling of evidence against the violation of the indication of place of origin, studio, Gmarket, merp, and c

1. Article 14 of the Act on Origin Labeling of Agricultural and Fishery Products and Articles 6(1)1 of the Act on Origin Labeling of Agricultural and Fishery Products for criminal facts and the Selection of Punishment does not have any history of punishment for the same kind of crime, and the price difference between the Cheongsong and the North Korean company from the Cheongsong, with due care, such as changing the origin indication from the Cheongsong to the “domestic origin”, and the Defendant does not seem to have withdrawn unjust profits by causing consumers to confuse the country of origin.