logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원 2014.11.18 2014고정1634
농수산물의원산지표시에관한법률위반
Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 700,000.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

No person who sells or provides agricultural and fishery products or the processed products thereof after cooking shall place a false indication of the place of origin or place a mark likely to cause confusion therewith.

Nevertheless, from July 1, 2014 to July 17, 201 of the same month, the Defendant processed and sold “FB” as the raw material of night bread produced by using middle-sea nights in the Dmate located in Gwangju, Seo-gu, Gwangju as “FB”, but made a false indication of origin by indicating “the night of indication of origin” on the display stand for sale at the said establishment.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Investigative Report (Details of Purchase of Daes at the night in the Republic of Korea), - one copy of the purchase records of E during the night in the Republic of Korea, one copy of E Trade Statement - one copy of E Trade Statement - five copies of G on-site investigation photographs of stock companies;

1. Application of Chapter 16 of the Evidence and photographs on the scene of violation;

1. Relevant Articles 15 and 6 (2) 1 of the Act on Origin Labeling of Agricultural and Fishery Products and the Selection of Punishment for Criminal Facts;

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

1. The crime of this case with the reason of sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the provisional payment order is that it undermines the distribution order of agricultural products, impairs the seller's trust in reliance on the seller's marks of origin, and thus, is not such crime.

However, there seems to be some circumstances to consider the circumstances leading to the instant crime, such as the fact that the Defendant divided the Defendant’s mistake into a multicultural family, and the Defendant took over the said “E” from the former principal around April 2014 as a female of a multicultural family, and has not yet been maintained yet. The Defendant appears to have no criminal record, and the period and product size of the Defendant expressed the country of origin in falsehood, the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive and background of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, etc.

arrow