The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In this case, F had the fishery products in the mountainous district and the actual spot goods.

G, the shipment owner, was actually listed in the E Joint Markets of Fisheries Cooperatives Federation E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant Joint Markets”), and even in the middle, F, at the instant Joint Markets, purchased at a fixed price and a number of sales methods.

Since the Defendant collected commission fees for transactions at such joint markets, the Defendant did not collect commission fees without actual transactions in violation of Article 42 of the Act on Distribution and Price Stabilization of Agricultural and Fishery Products (hereinafter “Agricultural and Fishery Distribution Act”).

B. Legal principles 1) The instant joint wholesale market is not a wholesale market under the Agricultural and Fishery Distribution Act, but a self-joint wholesale market. Each of the self-joint wholesale markets is concurrently engaged in the business of a distributor in the relevant wholesale market. [Agricultural and fishery products also are prohibited from engaging in the business of a distributor in the relevant wholesale market (Article 29(2) of the Agricultural and Fishery Distribution Act). No provision shall apply mutatis mutandis to a self-joint wholesale market (see Article 44(3) of the Agricultural and Fishery Distribution Act). Therefore, in the case of a self-joint wholesale market, it is not problematic whether the transaction between F and the instant joint wholesale market.

2) The Defendant does not have the authority to investigate whether G, the shipper of the goods, directly throw away from the mountainous district.

If the F, a seller of the instant joint market, purchased the goods through listing at the instant joint market, the consignment fee may be collected regardless of whether it is a real transaction.

3) The Defendant is unable to primarily refuse consignment from the shipment (Article 38 of the Agricultural and Fishery Distribution Act). As such, the Defendant may not refuse listing on the ground that it is a thing of which the F, a person who is a seller, loses, is a thing of which the G had passed.

In such cases, it is unreasonable to punish the defendant as a violation of the Agricultural and Fishery Distribution Act, while allowing the listing of G and collecting entrustment fees.

2. Determination

A. The assertion of mistake of facts.