(영문) 춘천지방법원 2015.8.11.선고 2012노849 판결

2. Defendant Kim ○ shall be punished by a fine of KRW 20,00,00, KRW 00, KRW 10,000, and KRW 10,00, and KRW 00, and KRW 20,00, and KRW 00, respectively, by a fine of KRW 20,00, and KRW 00.

3. In a case where Defendant Kim ○, Kim ○, and Hong ○ did not pay each of the above fines, the above Defendants shall be confined in the old house for the period calculated by converting KRW 100,000 into one day.

4. To order the Defendants to pay an amount equivalent to the above fines.

Reasons

1. Progress of litigation;

A. The lower court: (a) purchased and slaughtered beef from the head of the cooperative of Defendant Dongsung Agricultural Cooperatives (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant Dongsung Agricultural Cooperatives”); (b) the head of the party prior to the remanding of the head of the sales team of Defendant Dongsung Agricultural Cooperatives (hereinafter referred to as “○○○○”); and (c) sold the said beef to the effect that the head of the party to the first instance court, who was the head of the sales team of the Defendant Dongsung Agricultural Cooperatives, supplied the said beef to ○○○; (d) the head of the party to the first instance court, who was the head of the sales team of the said agricultural cooperative, supplied the said beef to ○○; (e) the head of the ○○○○; and (e) sold the said beef to the effect that it would cause confusion with the origin of the livestock products that the Defendants and ○○○ et al. agreed to indicate the origin of the said beef; and (e) did not prove that the Defendants and the head of the ○○ et al. sold it in the domestic market.

B. On this basis, the prosecutor appealed against the Defendants, ○○○○, etc. on the grounds of misapprehension of legal principles and mistake of facts.

C. Under the judgment that the beef slaughtered within two months after the defendants moved to a Crossing-gun from among the beef sold by the defendants and ○○○○○, etc., it cannot be deemed that the beef slaughtered within two months cannot be seen as the beef produced from the Crossing-gun. The court held that the defendants specified the beef slaughtered within two months from among the beef purchased and slaughtered from ○○, etc., and that there was approximately 250 cm. Accordingly, the court below reversed the judgment of the defendants and found the defendants guilty as to the above 250 Mad beef from among the facts charged, on the other hand, it was not proven that the above 250 Mad beef was distributed to the head of the sales team, who is the head of the sales team, and there was no evidence to prove that the head of ○○, etc. sold the said 250 Mad beef by false entry.

D. The Defendants and the Prosecutor appealed against the judgment of the court prior to the remand, and the Supreme Court dismissed the Prosecutor’s appeal against the head of the court, etc., and reversed the part of the judgment prior to the remand and remanded to this court.

2. Grounds for appeal by a prosecutor;

A. Error of mistake

The court below recognized that the beef as stated in the facts charged was slaughtered after purchasing ○○, etc. cattle from Korea to scam in an area other than scam for a period from 20 days to 20 months after being transported to scam, but the beef as stated in the facts charged was transported to scam for a period from 20 days to 20 months. However, there is an error in the misunderstanding of facts in the judgment of the court below since the beef as stated in the facts charged was transported to s

B. Legal principles

The court below interpreted that the concept of "place of origin" under the Agricultural Products Quality Control Act can be interpreted as "place of origin" or "place of origin" in addition to the place of birth, but the Agricultural Products Quality Control Act stipulates the concept of "place of origin" as "place or area where agricultural products are produced or collected", and it is within the scope of the possible interpretation of the language and text. Thus, the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles.

3. Determination

A. Judgment on the mistake of facts

The prosecutor asserts that the total sum of 483 ma, as stated in the facts charged by Defendant Kim○, Kim○, and Red ○○, an executive officer or employee of Defendant Dongsung Agricultural Co., Ltd., was transported to a Crossing-gun through the Korean brokerage, and slaughtered immediately, or stored for a short period of less than two to three months, and slaughtered.

In accordance with the above argument of the prosecutor, there are the statements and statements made by the Korea-Japan broker and the Korean farmer's Korea-Japan, Kim○○, Ma○○, Ma○○, Ma○○, Ma○○, Ma○, MaO, MaO, and Kim○ as evidence, and the statements and statements made by the investigative agencies, and the Chinese producer's certificate and the application

Since the period of sale around January 1, 2008 to February 28, 2009, when the defendants supplied beef to the Agricultural Cooperative Co., Ltd., was mixed with one another before the installation of beef tracking system and ear tags is enforced nationwide, it is difficult for a prosecutor to understand the accurate date of birth, raising, and shipment by a farmer, and the main agent of production. Therefore, the entry of this document alone within the extent that it is not supported by the specific statement of a farmer who produced Korea Co., Ltd., and a Korean Co., Ltd., and a Korean Co., Ltd., to the extent that it is not supported by the contents of a statement, it cannot be deemed sufficient to find that the whole amount of beef as stated in the facts charged is the immediate slaughter by moving a lawsuit shipped from another area to the crossing. Furthermore, it is difficult to view the statement of the lower court from the investigative agency in light of the following: (a) the Korean Co., Ltd., Kim Il-ok, Kim Il-○, ○○, ○○○, and ○○ testimony.

However, according to the following circumstances acknowledged by the court below and the court below’s duly admitted and investigated evidence, the quantity of cattle 25 maris among the beef stated in the facts charged can be recognized as having been transported to a scambling and slaughtered immediately after having moved the cattle shipped from another area.

① According to the testimony of the lower court at each of the following facts, among the witness of the lower court, the witnesses purchased in other areas and brought to the Crossing-gun, and stated the volume of cattle slaughtered within 2-3 months and the quantity of cattle slaughtered within 2-3 months from the date of initial facts charged. However, in addition, as to the fact that the number of cattle slaughtered immediately on the day on which the livestock farmers in other areas were born, raised, and shipped to the Crossing-gun and moved to the Crossing-gun-gun, the sum of the number of cattle slaughtered immediately on the day when the livestock farmers in other areas moved to the Crossing-gun-gun is 25-27 miles-gun.

첫째, 한우중개상 한○○는 2008. 1. 1. 경 ~ 2009. 2. 28. 경 피고인 동횡성농협에게 한우 총 450마리를 공급하였는데, 그와 같이 공급한 경위는 다른 지역의 축산농가에서 출생 · 사육 · 출하된 한우를 주로 해당 농가에 직접 찾아가서 이를 구입하거나, 또는 중간거래상을 경유하는 등의 방법에 의하여 유통업자에 의한 전형적인 경제활동의 일환으로 피고인 동횡성농협에게 이를 공급했던 것으로 보이는바, 한우중개상 한○○가 공급한 위 450마리 중 20마리는 다른 지역에서 출생 · 사육 · 출하된 한우를 구입하여 원주시 소재 도축장으로 이동시켜 그 당일에 곧바로 도축한 뒤 이를 유통한 것이고 , 위 450마리 중 나머지 430마리는 도축장 인근의 횡성군 소재 우사 ( 牛舍 ) 로 이동시켜 보관 내지 사육을 하다가 3 ~ 4개월 이내에 도축한 뒤 이를 유통한 것이다 ( 공판기록 162 ~ 164쪽 ) .

[On the other hand, the Korea-Japan ○○○ Co., Ltd. supplied a total of 100 marries, raised, and shipped in another area to Defendant Dongsung Agricultural Cooperative, which had been slaughtered and distributed within 15 days from the 3-mar movement, and the remainder of 97mar stored in a slaughterhouse near the slaughterhouse, which had been slaughtered and distributed within 2-4 months, and the remaining 97mar sold it. Such distribution quantity was supplied to Defendant Dongsung Agricultural Cooperative via Korea-U.S., a distributor of Korea-Japan mar, and thus, the distribution quantity of ○○○ was already included (255-256 pages of the trial record).

Second, on January 1, 2008 to February 28, 2009, Kim ○-dong supplied a total of 318 mari from around 1 to around 28, 2009, and the reason for such supply appears to have been supplied as part of the distribution act like the above ○○ case. Of the above 318 Mari-dong supplied Kim ○-dong, the two-thirds of the above 318 Mari-dong supplied the 318 Mari-dong supplied the Mari-dong supplied the Mari-dong to the slaughterhouse located in the original city, and immediately transported the Mari-si to the slaughterhouse located in the original city, and distributed it on the same day. The remaining 15 Mari-dong was slaughtered and distributed within 2-3 months, and the remaining 3-15 Mari-dong was slaughtered.

Third, at the same time, Korea-Japan brokerage and Masan supplied a total of 106 maws to U.S. U.S. A.S. on January 1, 2008 to Feb. 28, 2009. Of the above 106 ma, 10 maws supplied by U.S. Y., the 10 maws out of the 106 ma, which were born, raised, and shipped to another area, and stored or bred to a post office located in the vicinity of the slaughterhouse, and distributed it after being slaughtered within two to three months, and the remainder was slaughtered and distributed after being slaughtered for more than three months (the trial record 129, 130 maws).

Fourth, at the same time, Korea-Japan Brokerage Co., Ltd. and at the same time supplied 30 m30 m30 m3 from Jan. 1, 2008 to Feb. 28, 2009 to U.S. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P.P.P.

② At the same time, the Defendants and their defense counsel stated relatively detailed statements in the lower court to clarify the details of distribution in the process of denying the authenticity of each written statement and the written statement at an investigation agency unfavorable to them in the process of denying the authenticity of the written statement and the written statement. The Defendants and their defense counsel did not impose any specific attack on each of the above testimony of the lower court that Han-woo et al. stated on the details of distribution. The Defendants and their defense counsel did not bring any attack on each of the above testimony of the lower court, including the Korea-Japan producer shipment certificate and the written application for slaughter inspection, etc.

In light of the fact that testimony of each of the above court below stated on the details of specific distribution by ○○, etc. is supported, each of the above testimony stated by ○○, etc. in the court below on the details of specific distribution has credibility.

③ Comprehensively considering the above evidence with other evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the following facts can be acknowledged: (a) the Defendants, an executive officer or employee of the Donsung AF, purchased the Korea-style cattle born, raised, or shipped in another region through brokerage and immediately moved to a slaughterhouse adjacent to the crossing area; and (b) immediately performed the slaughter of cattle; and (c) the volume of beef distributed as a fake to the customers of the Seoul and the Seoul Metropolitan area as a fake, can be acknowledged as having a total of about 25 maws as follows.

Therefore, the prosecutor's assertion of misconception of facts against the Defendants is justified within the scope of 25 marith, and the exceeding part is without merit.

B. Judgment on the misapprehension of legal principle

1) Relevant legal principles

Article 2 of the former Agricultural Products Quality Control Act (amended by Act No. 9667 of May 8, 2009; hereinafter referred to as the "Act") provides that "agricultural products" in subparagraph 1 means unprocessed agricultural products, forest products (excluding stone and aggregate), livestock products, and other products as prescribed by the Presidential Decree; "place of origin" in subparagraph 6 refers to the country or area in which agricultural products are produced or collected; and "the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs shall require the seller or processing of agricultural products to indicate the place of origin for the persons who sell or process agricultural products and processed agricultural products, if it is prescribed by the Presidential Decree as necessary for establishing distribution order of agricultural products. Paragraph (3) provides that "the items subject to the indication of the place of origin under the provisions of paragraph (1) shall be prescribed by the Presidential Decree."

According to such delegation, Article 24(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Agricultural Products Quality Control Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 21805, Nov. 2, 2009; hereinafter referred to as the "Enforcement Decree") indicates the name of a Si/Gun/autonomous Gu (hereinafter referred to as a "Si/Gun/Gu") or a Si/Gun/autonomous Gu (hereinafter referred to as a "Si/Gun/Gu") that produces agricultural products under subparagraph 1 with respect to the method of indicating the country of origin under Article 15(3) of the Act. Article 24(1) of the Enforcement Decree provides for the following criteria for determining the country of origin of agricultural products under Article 15(3) of the Act:

Meanwhile, Articles 34-2 and 17(1)1 and 34-2 of the Act and Article 15(1)3 of the Act provide that a person who sells agricultural products subject to the labeling of origin shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than 7 years or by a fine not exceeding 100 million won, or both of them shall be punished by a fine, or both of them, when the representative of a corporation commits a violation under Article 34-2 of the Act in connection with the business of the corporation, not only shall the violator be punished, but also the corporation shall be punished.

In general, unless agricultural products and forest products are transplanted from the original place to another area prior to harvest or gathering, there is no particular difficulty in deeming the place of harvest or gathering as the origin of the relevant agricultural products and forest products. However, in cases of agricultural products such as livestock products such as meat of movable livestock, etc. and the meat of wild animals raised as agricultural products recognized under Article 2 of the Enforcement Decree, etc., such conclusion may vary depending on which elements of birth, breeding, or slaughter should be considered in determining their origin.

First of all, considering the legislative purpose of the Act to contribute to the increase of the income of farmers and the protection of consumers by increasing the commercial quality of agricultural products and inducing fair trade through the appropriate quality control of agricultural products, the act of indicating a certain area of cattle, Do, Si, Gun, and Gu name as the origin in the domestic beef and thus selling the cattle at issue constitutes "an act of falsely indicating the origin of a certain area of cattle, Do, or Si, Gun, or Gu name, or an act of falsely selling the country of origin in which the cattle was born, raised, or slaughtered, was immediately slaughtered for only the purpose of slaughter after being moved to the slaughter for the only purpose of the slaughter after being moved to the slaughter for the purpose of the slaughter, if it was displayed as the origin of the slaughter."

Meanwhile, penal provisions shall be strictly interpreted and applied in accordance with their language and text, and they shall not be excessively extensively or analogically interpreted in the direction unfavorable to the defendant (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2009Do3053, Dec. 10, 2009; 2009Do13435, Apr. 29, 2010). In a case where a lawsuit born in the Republic of Korea is slaughtered while being raised in an area other than the place of birth, and the relevant lawsuit is slaughtered to a certain extent, if there is no provision in the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes as to whether it can be indicated as the country of origin only when the relevant lawsuit was raised for a certain period of time, it cannot be readily concluded that it constitutes a violation of the rules of origin labeling immediately, even if the name of the relevant Si/Do or Si/Gun/Gu was indicated as the country of origin in a specific area.

However, at the time of the crime of this case, there is no provision on the criteria for determining the origin of agricultural products moved from the place of birth, etc. as above in the law and the Enforcement Decree.

2. Article 25(4) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Agricultural Products Quality Control Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 21805) provides that “The detailed criteria for determining origin shall be determined and publicly notified by the Minister of Food, Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries where it is difficult to determine the origin of agricultural products under subparagraph 1 of Article 25(1) due to transplant, movement, etc.”

2. 4. The Act on Origin Labeling of Agricultural and Fishery Products (Act No. 1002) was enacted, and Article 5(4) thereof and Article 5(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act delegated, Article 5(2) of the Guidelines for Origin Labeling of Agricultural and Fishery Products (No. 2011 - 45 of the Ministry for Food, Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries Notice No. 2011 - 35 of the Ministry for Food, Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries) [Attachment 3] 1. Where it is intended to indicate “the country of origin of the beef born, raised, or slaughtered in the Republic of Korea” only as “Si/Do or Si/Gun/Gu name” on the basis of the date of slaughter in the relevant City/Do or Si/Gun/Gu. The standards for origin determination have been established.

In a case where a person slaughters feed in a certain area without slaughter on the date of movement for reasons such as recovery of the body reduced during the movement process or adjustment of the time of slaughter, etc., in a case where the person did not have any separate provisions in the laws and regulations regarding origin labeling at the time of the crime of this case, it shall be reasonably determined based on individual cases, in full view of the type and age of the relevant cattle, health condition, the period from the time of movement to the time of slaughter, the type of the place where the person drinks and stays in the relevant cattle after movement, the type and method of the feed supplied to the relevant cattle after movement, the type of the feed and its method of delivery, the change of body body, etc., and in contrast, it shall not be determined whether the person violated the rules on origin labeling in a uniform manner by arbitrarily establishing the period from the time of movement to the time of slaughter.

In the instant case, as seen in the facts charged, the act of the defendants moving the cattle shipped from ○○, etc. to scambling for a period from 20 to 20 months after the immediately slaughtered cattle to scambling from 1,00 to scambling. According to the above legal principles, the act of selling the cattle to scambling "camb" on the date of movement, while the defendants moved to scam to scambling to scambling to scambling to scambling to scambling to scam in other areas than scam-gun. However, once the cattle farmers in scam-Gun moved to scambling to scambling to scambling to scambling to scambling to scambling to scambling to scambling to scam.

Of the beef as stated in the facts charged of this case, the quantity of 25 Mad Co., Ltd. among the beef as stated in the facts charged of this case can be recognized as having been immediately slaughtered by moving the cattle shipped from another area to the dub as seen earlier, but the remaining quantity of the beef was only caused by the evidence submitted by the

It is insufficient to recognize that ○○ et al. moved cattle shipped from another area to a scambling, the specific period until the time of slaughter, the kind, age, and health conditions of cattle, the form of a place where cattle remains, the kind and method of feed, and whether the body changes were known, etc., and only an act of preparation for slaughter was performed until the time of slaughter, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Therefore, the prosecutor’s assertion of the legal principles as to the Defendants is without merit, within the scope of cattle 25 marine, which is recognized as slaughter on the day of slaughter, and there is no reason to acknowledge the remainder.

C. Sub-committee

As can be seen, among the beef as indicated in the facts charged of this case, the cattle of 25 miles can be deemed as having been slaughtered immediately after the movement of cattle shipped from other areas to the scam, and as to the said cattle slaughtered on the same day, the reason for the appeal by the prosecutor is reasonable within the scope of the above recognition. On June 18, 2015, the prosecutor made an application for the alteration of the indictment to the effect that on the same day, the defendants moved to the scam from other areas to the scam for the purpose that the country of origin of the said cattle slaughtered on the day when the defendants were transported to the scam in other areas and sold the said cattle to the scam for the scam scam scam scam scam scam scam scam scam scam scam scam scam scam scam scam scam scam.

[Judgment to be used again] Criminal Facts

Defendant ○○○○ is the head of the cooperative of the Dongsung Agricultural Cooperative (hereinafter referred to as the “Dongsung Agricultural Cooperative”), which is located in Dasung-gun, Susung-gun, Susung-gun, Dasung-gun, Dasung-gun, 767, and was in charge of the direct trade sales business of Dongsung-gun. Defendant Red ○○ was in charge of managing funds, such as purchase price, sales price, etc. in connection with the above Korea-U.S. direct trade sales business, as the former head of the Dongsung Agricultural Cooperative. Defendant ○○○ was in charge of the above Korea-U.S. Co., Ltd., which was in charge of the above Korea-U.S. direct trade sales business. Defendant ○○○ was in charge of purchasing, transporting, selling, selling, etc., and managing the lawsuit, and the head of the sales team in charge of the above Korea-U.S. direct trade sales business. Defendant ○○ was in charge of the Korea-U.S. corporation and the Korea National Agricultural Cooperative.

Defendant 0○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ 6, 6, which was 600, ever in 106, 666, 666, 6666, 66666, 65, 1066.

1. Defendant KimO, Red ○, and Kim○○

No person shall place a mark on the livestock products that have the place of origin labeling that may cause confusion as to the place of origin, or sell them in disguised manner.

Defendant ○○○, Red○○, and Kim ○○○ (hereinafter “○○”) purchased one milk born, raised, and shipped from Korea-China to February 28, 2009, and distributed it through direct trade in agricultural cooperatives. However, among them, the beef of a quantity of 25 maeas stated in the table was slaughtered immediately by moving the cattle of another region to the breadth, and thus, it was difficult to make a false indication or sell it to consumers in a disguised manner, as the origin of the beef was not crossing.

Nevertheless, the above Defendants, in the list of crimes in Seoul and the Seoul Metropolitan Area, disguisedly circulated and distributed approximately 25 cm beef in the quantity of 25 cm to the direct trade store in the Agricultural Cooperative in the Seoul and the Seoul Metropolitan Area, listed in the separate crime list during the above sale period, and acquired unjust profits in the amount of the cattle by selling them to many unspecified consumers by selling a fake beef, which is the head of the sales team, who knows such circumstances, such as ○○, ○○, Hoju, ambi, ○○, Kim Il-so, Kim Il-so, Kim Il-so, and Tae-so, which is the head of the sales team, who is aware of such circumstances, in the form of "sale method" listed in the separate crime list.

2. Defendant Dongsung Agricultural Co., Ltd.: (a) from Jan. 1, 2008 to Feb. 28, 2009, Defendant Kim ○, the representative of Defendant Kim ○, in relation to the business of the Dongsung Agricultural Co., Ltd.; (b) made a disguised distribution of approximately 25 Mad Co., Ltd., as indicated in the above 1. paragraph, even though the origin of approximately KRW 25 Mad Co., Ltd., as indicated in the above 1., Ltd., was not narrow; and (c) obtained unjust profits in an amount by falsely indicating the origin through the head of the association in the direct trade market in Seoul and Seoul, Seoul, and the head of the association in the Seoul, Seoul, and the Seoul, and then selling them

[ within the scope of adjudication and the extent that does not hinder the above Defendants’ exercise of their right to defense, the court acknowledged the crime by adding or adding phrases to the reduced criminal facts in conformity with the relevant legal principles. In the case of a single comprehensive crime, barring special circumstances such as the statutory aggravated punishment according to the quantity and amount of the crime, it is sufficient that the criminal facts are clearly identified to the extent that it can be known that the facts are referred to in general in terms of the date, place, method, quantity, etc. of the crime.

Summary of Evidence

1. The Defendants’ respective statements in the 9th trial records of the lower court (Seoul District Court Chuncheon District Court 2009 Godan101 case)

1. Part of a statement by the witness at the trial and the witness at the trial;

1. Part of the legal statement of the lower court’s witness ○○○, Kim○○, Jeong○○, Jeong○○, Jung○○○, Jung○○○, and Hy○○○;

1. Seizure records;

1. Each internal investigation report (a list of evidence 18, 22 through 26, 29, 30, 45 through 72, 76, 87, 88, 114 through 116, 127 through 140, 151 through 160, 167, 169);

1. Reporting on the results of each investigation under the direction of a prosecutor;

1. A certificate of confirmation (main cellular services);

1. A report on internal investigation (report attached to evidence of crime), investigation report (verification of a report of the Gangwon-do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do dong Do Do Do Do dong Do Do Do Do-

1. Determination as to the Defendants’ assertion on the application for slaughter inspection, the certificate of shipment of oriental medicine producers, and the certificate of distribution transaction

1. The assertion;

After the remand, the Defendants make the following arguments.

A. The Defendants are not aware of the fact that the amount of cattle 25 marigram as stated in the judgment of the court below was produced in Mari-gun, and thus there is no intention to commit a crime.

B. The country of origin of beef at each direct transaction store in the separate sheet of crime in the annexed sheet of Korea, was indicated as a “scambling” or was not sold in disguised manner.

C. There is no evidence to deem that the beef of the 25 marin quantity in the ruling as stated in paragraph (1) was sold by indicating the country of origin in direct trade store in the separate sheet in the annexed sheet of crime.

2. Determination

All of the above arguments that the defendants denied by the defendants are the parts that the defendants led to confession in the original court court, the court of original judgment, and the court of the pawned judgment. The defendants' confession in the original court alone differs from the legal statement in the court of original instance cannot be said to be doubtful of the probative value or credibility of the confession. In determining the credibility of the confession, considering the facts that the contents of the confession's statement per se are objectively rational, what is the motive or reason of the confession, what is the motive or reason of the confession, and what is the circumstance leading up to the confession, and what does not conflict with the confession among the circumstantial evidences other than the confession, it is necessary to determine whether there was a situation where there was a rational doubt in the motive or process of the confession under Article 309 of the Criminal Procedure Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 98Do159, Mar. 13, 199; 9Do2605, Jan. 15, 199).

In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the court below, the defendants' assertion is not acceptable, since the defendants can be admitted the credibility of confessions made in the court below and the court before remand and there are no other materials to reverse it.

① In the lower court and the first instance court prior to remand, the Defendants sold the beef listed in paragraph (1) of the judgment of the Defendants with the country of origin indicated in the separate sheet of crime as stated in the separate sheet of crime. The Defendants knew that at the time of sale, the Defendants were aware that the said beef was transported not to a lawsuit born from the crossing but to a lawsuit born from the sloping, and slaughtered at the port of origin, and that the beef listed in paragraph (1) of the judgment was sold at each store listed in the separate sheet of crime. However, the Defendants asserted that the Defendants’ above act did not constitute an act of deceiving the country of origin as well as short-term raising and slaughter guidance as well as the place of origin of the said beef as stated in the separate sheet of crime.

② When the Defendants were led to confession as above in the court of first instance before the remand and back, the Defendants received sufficient assistance of counsel, and it is reasonable to view that the confession was made voluntarily under particularly reliable circumstances in view of the circumstances where the Defendants led to confession of their crimes against the full bench during the trial date when the defendants were in progress through fair procedures. Thus, credibility is high, and there is no other circumstance to deny the Voluntary confession and credibility.

③ According to the internal investigation report (report attached to evidence of crime), investigation report (verification of a news report from Gangwon-do's public figure), and (the news report from the livestock franchi Docul Docul Docul Docul Docul Docul Docul Docul Doc) on March 2009, the term "in the part of the personnel report of defendant Kim ○, a representative of the cooperative Docul Docul Docul Docul Docul Docul Docul Docul Docul Docul Docul Docul Docul Docul Docul Doc." was written, and it was reasonable to view that Docul Docul Docul Docul Doc was a major business to sell Docul Docul Docul Docul Docul Docul Doc. Docul Doc. Doc.

④ Defendant Kim Jong-○ stated to the effect that he had been promoting the business of selling direct trade in the suspect interrogation of the police, but he stated to the effect that the sold beef was not born and raised in the crossing. While he stated to the effect that he was unaware of the fact that the U.S. beef was not born and raised in the crossing, Defendant Kim Jong-soo, Hong-○ was promoting the business of selling direct trade in the suspect interrogation of the police, and that the sold beef was not born and raised in the crossing, so he stated to the effect that he had the country of origin indicated as ‘domestic acid' and ‘ Han-woo'. As such, with respect to the business of selling direct trade in Korea, which was promoted as one of the main businesses at the time of 2009 in the same time, the Defendant’s statement to the effect that the Defendant’s statement was made in the investigation stage, what is the opposite to the investigation stage at the court below, and that it was recognized that the Defendant’s statement to the effect that the Defendant’s statement was made in the confession and its credibility in the investigation stage.

Application of Statutes

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

Defendant ○○○, Kim ○, and Red ○○: Each of the former Agricultural Products Quality Control Act (amended by Act No. 9667 of May 8, 2009; hereinafter referred to as the “former Agricultural Products Quality Control Act”) Articles 34-2 and 17(1)1 and 3 of the former Agricultural Products Quality Control Act, Article 30 of the Criminal Act (including the following):

Defendant Dongsung Agricultural Cooperative: Articles 37, 34-2, 17(1)1, and 37(1)3 of the former Agricultural Products Quality Control Act, Article 30 of the Criminal Act

1. Selection of punishment;

Defendant ○○○, Kim○, and Hong○○: Selection of each fine

1. Detention in a workhouse;

Defendant ○○○, Kim ○, and Red ○○: Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of each Criminal Act

1. Order of provisional payment;

Defendants: Reasons for sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act; 1. Legal penalty: Not more than KRW 100 million, respectively.

2. Recommendation type on the sentencing criteria: The decision not to take into account given that the sentencing criteria have not been set at the time of the prosecution of this case.

3. Sentence: A fine of KRW 20 million for a fine of KRW 20,000,000,000,000 for a fine of KRW 10,000,000 for each of the defendant Kim Sung-sung, Kim Jong-chul, and the fine of KRW 20,000

4. Grounds for sentencing;

The defendants moved to a lawsuit raised by domestic consumers in a non-disciencing area, other than a crossing by using the credibility that they sell high quality food materials produced in the country of origin in direct trade, and immediately slaughtered the lawsuit, and then distributed them to the Seoul and the Seoul Metropolitan Area Direct Trade Sales Office, under the disguised manner that the beef was salvbed, and the crime of disguised origin of food materials requires strict control as a crime threatening the health and health of the people. In light of the fact that the defendants showed an urgent attitude to transfer responsibility to the individual sales team team rather than to reflect the wrongness after the investigation was initiated, the crime is not good.

However, there is a reason to consider the Defendants, such as the fact that the quantity of beef sold as a result of the instant crime is smaller than the quantity of cattle 25 maws.

Taking into account all of the aforementioned circumstances against the Defendants, the sentence against the Defendants shall be imposed at KRW 20 million on Defendant Kim○○, KRW 10 million on Defendant Kim○, and KRW 20 million on each of the charges against Defendant Kim○, KRW 10 million on Defendant Kim○, and KRW 20 million on Defendant Dongsung Agricultural Cooperative.

The acquittal portion

1. Summary of the facts charged

A. As indicated in Paragraph 1 of the holding, Defendant Kim○, Kim ○, Kim ○, and Hong ○○, conspiredd to purchase cattle 483 maris, the country of origin of which is not crossed, and provided them to the head of the sales team by slaughtering them. The head of the sales team sold the said beef as “brupted beef,” and sold them with a mark likely to cause confusion as to the country of origin, or with a disguised sale of the livestock products, the country of origin of which is marked.

B. As indicated in Paragraph 2 of the judgment below, Defendant Dongsung Agricultural Co., Ltd.: (a) purchased a small 483 Marri by the president of the cooperative, the president of the cooperative, Kim ○, the representative of which, after slaughtering the cattle 483 Marri; and (b) sold the said beef to the head of the sales team, the head of the sales team, “brupted the said beef,” and sold the said beef as “brupted beef,” with an indication of the

2. Determination

As seen earlier, 25 E. 483 E. of the facts charged that the country of origin is not crossing by the evidence submitted by the prosecutor’s office. As such, the above facts charged regarding the portion exceeding the quantity of 25 mags constitutes a case where there is no proof of crime and thus, the acquittal should be pronounced pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, but as long as the court found the defendant guilty of violating the Agricultural Products Quality Control Act, which is a comprehensive crime, the court

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.

Judges

Judges Masung-young

Judges Domincs

Judge Lee Jin-han

Note tin

1) The sales volume, quantity converted into kg, and the market value, etc. classified into 28 direct trade sales places in the attached list of crimes committed in this case shall be invoked.

Since it is not correct to the extent that it is not correct, the facts of the crime are recognized only on the basis of the total quantity of fake rain.

심급 사건

-춘천지방법원 원주지원 2011.2.22.선고 2009고단1011

-춘천지방법원 2012.2.22.선고 2011노227

-대법원 2012.10.25.선고 2012도3575

춘천지방법원 2015.8.11.선고 2012노849

참조조문

-농산물품질관리법

-농산물품질관리법 제2조

-농산물품질관리법 제15조 제3항

-농산물품질관리법 제17조 제1항 제1호

-농산물품질관리법 제34조의2

-농산물품질관리법 제37조