logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 청주지방법원 2018.12.14 2018노642
농수산물의원산지표시에관한법률위반
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, the Defendant was not the operator of the restaurant called “C”, and the Defendant was merely 10 days a month at the above restaurant, and the Defendant’s purchase of Chinese kimchi was merely for the purpose of dividing the Defendant’s purchase of Chinese kimchi into eating or selling to its people, but did not purchase Chinese kimchi for the purpose of providing it to customers.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous and adversely affected by the judgment.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (the amount of KRW 500,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

A. The summary of the facts charged is a person who operates a restaurant under the trade name of “C” in the Chungcheong Donsan-gun B.

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 October 7, 2017 to January 15, 2018, the Defendant purchased a total of 110km of domestic distribution of Chinese products from “G” located in “E” located in Chungcheongbuk-do through several times, and a total of 220km of domestic distribution of Chinese products from “G” located in “Y” located in the Chungcheong-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, and provided an unspecified number of people with a false indication of origin 215km of domestic production, while selling and supplying for reflect use, and kept the remainder of 5km in front of the above restaurant to provide it for the same purpose.

B. The lower court and the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged on the grounds of the circumstances indicated in its reasoning.

The following circumstances revealed by the court below and the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, i.e., the signboards of “C (hereinafter “C”)” (hereinafter “C”) include mobile phone numbers, and the aforementioned mobile phone numbers.

arrow