logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 의정부지방법원 고양지원 2015.07.10 2015고단978
양곡관리법위반
Text

Defendant

A shall be punished by a fine for negligence of KRW 7,000,000, and by a fine of KRW 3,000,000.

Defendant

A above.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

Defendant

B is a corporation that engages in the wholesale and retail business of agricultural and fishery products in Youngdong-gu Busan Metropolitan City E, and the defendant A is the actual operator of the above corporation.

1. No defendant A grain processing operator or grain dealer shall make an indication that might deceive, mislead, or confuse consumers with regard to the production year, quality, etc. of grain;

Nevertheless, on November 6, 2013, the Defendant mixed the white and low price, purchased at the above B factory, and on October 28, 2013, with the white and low price, the date of which is not known, and sold at the Internet shopping market, etc. by packing 20 km on the packing paper and packing 19 km on November 6, 2013.

2. The Defendant Company B, a real representative of the Defendant, committed a violation as referred to in the above Section A(1).

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Each prosecutor's statement concerning F and G;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to the details of detection (including evidence 2 through 6 of attached documents), the certified transcript of corporate register, and investigation report (with respect to Belgium)

1. Defendant A: Article 34 subparagraph 4 of the Grain Management Act; Article 20-3 (1) 2 of the Act on the Management of Grain; Article 35, subparagraph 4 of Article 34, and Article 20-3 (1) 2 of the Grain Management Act;

1. Defendant A at a workhouse: Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act;

1. Defendants of the provisional payment order: The reasons for sentencing of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, Defendant A committed the instant crime during the period of repeated crime despite the fact that he/she had been sentenced to a violation of the Agricultural Products Quality Control Act.

However, the above defendant's confession of the crime at the latest aftermathy in this court does not repeat the crime.

Illegal. The case was discovered.

arrow