Defendants shall be punished by a fine of KRW 2,000,000.

In the event that the Defendants did not pay the above fine, the Defendants did not pay the fine.

Criminal facts

1. Defendant B is a person who operated the “Emart” in Ma-si, and a person who intends to sell food in a supermarket, etc. with a business site area of at least 300 square meters and engage in other food sales business shall report to the competent administrative agency. However, even from July 2012 to August 2014, the Defendant sold food, such as agricultural products, fishery products, etc., without reporting to the competent administrative agency, at the same business establishment with a size of at least 428 square meters.

2. The Defendant: (a) operated the “Emart” in Saco-si; (b) the Defendant, who intends to sell food in Saco-market, etc. with a business site area of at least 300 square meters, filed a report thereon with the competent authority; (c) however, from September 2014 to November 21, 2014, the Defendant sold food, such as agricultural products, fishery products, etc., without reporting to the competent authority; and (d) operated other food sales business without reporting to the competent authority.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Each legal statement of witness F, A and G;

1. Details of accusation, environmental administrative system, general building ledgers, and current status map of buildings;

1. Application of statutes on field photographs;

1. Article 97 subparagraph 1 of the Food Sanitation Act and Article 37 (4) of the same Act concerning criminal facts (Article 25 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Food Sanitation Act, Article 39 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act), and selection of fines, respectively;

1. Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. Determination as to the Defendants’ assertion under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, respectively, of the provisional payment order

1. The defense counsel of the Defendants: (a) the Defendants had no intention on the part of the Defendants because they had known that the instant E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E is subject to the competent authority; and (b) there was no evidence to deem that the business area exceeded 300 square meters at the time of its operation, and thus, the instant facts charged cannot be acknowledged

2. However, in full view of each of the instant evidence submitted by the Prosecutor, the Defendants’ assertion that he was unaware of the facts subject to reporting is simple.