beta
Text
All appeals are dismissed.
Reasons
The grounds of appeal are examined.
1. As to the grounds of appeal by Defendant A and Defendant F
A. As to the violation of the Environment-Friendly Agriculture Fosterage Act (hereinafter “F”), the lower court acknowledged the fact that Defendant A, based on the adopted evidence, sold eco-friendly rice that was kept in mixed with the certification number by Defendant F (hereinafter “F”), indicating F’s certification number, not the certification number of the relevant rice producer, to the environment-friendly rice that was kept in storage by mixing it with the certification number, and determined that the act of indicating a certification number by a person other than the relevant producer constitutes “an act of displaying a certification number by a person other than the relevant producer” prohibited by subparagraph 2 of Article 17-5 of the former Environment-Friendly Agriculture Fosterage Promotion Act (amended by Act No. 9623, Apr. 1, 2009; hereinafter the same
In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the above fact-finding and determination by the court below are just and acceptable. Contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal principles
(2) Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the records, the court below is just in finding the fact that the rice, which Defendant A stored in F, was marked and sold as an agricultural product environmentally friendly to agricultural chemicals in rice packaging, even though the rice was not an agricultural product environmentally friendly to agricultural chemicals, and found the Defendant guilty of this part of the charges. Contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, the court below did
B. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the record as to the violation of the Agricultural Products Quality Control Act, the lower court indicated the origin of the rice produced by Defendant A as “inhumanation” by mixing the rice produced from Incheon’s Gyeyang with the rice produced from Incheon’s Gyeyang.