logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원 2013.11.15 2013고정2163
농수산물의원산지표시에관한법률위반
Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 500,000.

If the defendant fails to pay the above fine, 50,000 won shall be one day.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is a person who operates a general restaurant in the name of "D" in the Dong-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City C1st.

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

From the beginning of August 2012 to August 9, 2013, the Defendant purchased 520 kgg from the F located in Gwangju Northern-gu, the market price of which is equivalent to 624,000 won.

The Defendant, using double-Korean Chinese Chinese Chinese Chinese port as above, offered two copies to customers for anti-conception using double-chi, while falsely marking the origin of anti-concil as “kim - domestic acid” on the Megnchi, provided that, from the time of purchase to the date of detection, the Defendant made a false marking of the origin of anti-conception Kim 519kg in China in the market value equivalent to 622,800 won in the market value, and kept 1kgg in the Korean Meg in the business place on August 9, 2013 in order to provide them as above.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. G statements;

1. Detection site photographs;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on investigation reporting;

1. Articles 15 and 6 (2) 1 of the Act on Origin Labeling of Agricultural and Fishery Products concerning criminal facts;

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

1. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the following grounds: (a) some of the grounds for sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, including the fact that the reason for sentencing of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, has not been

arrow