beta
Text
Defendant
All A and prosecutor appeals are dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant A (unfair sentencing)’s punishment (6 months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
B. In light of the overall circumstances of prosecutor (misunderstanding of facts), although Defendant B could recognize the fact that Defendant C was in custody for the purpose of selling 22 tons of the U.S. frozen chickens 22 tons, as stated in the facts charged, with respect to the business of Defendant C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Co., Ltd.”), the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts, thereby finding the Defendant not guilty of this part of the facts charged.
2. Determination
A. The prosecutor’s assertion 1) The summary of the factory laboratory A is a person who engages in livestock products sales business ( meat sales business) under the name of "H" in Gwangju-si G and 104 in Gyeonggi-do. The Defendant Company is a person who engages in livestock products storage business (as of March 9, 2014), livestock products processing business (as of December 8, 2014) and meat packaging business (as of December 10, 2014) and meat packaging business (as of December 10, 2014) and the Defendant Company is a person who has overall control over the Defendant Company’s business and export affairs.
A) No livestock products, the distribution deadline indicated on Defendant B, shall be sold or treated, processed, packaged, used, imported, stored, transported or displayed for sales purposes.
Nevertheless, at around 15:00 on January 7, 2015, the Defendant purchased at the 17.6 million won from the Defendant Company, the distribution period from A (from June 6, 2012 to June 2014) of the U.S. Freezing 22 tons (a store amounting to 50 million won) of freezing 17.6 million won, and stored it in the Defendant Company’s freezing warehouse until February 4, 2015 for sale.
B) The employer of the Defendant Company B, the Defendant Company, committed a violation of the Livestock Products Sanitary Control Act, as described in the foregoing paragraph (a) with respect to the Defendant Company’s business.
2) The following circumstances acknowledged in the lower court’s judgment based on the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, i.e., A, Defendant B.