A defendant shall be punished by a fine of 500,000 won.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won shall be one day.

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is a person who operates a general restaurant in the name of Seosan City C with D.

No person who sells or provides agricultural and fishery products or the processed products thereof after cooking shall make a false indication of the place of origin or make an indication that may cause confusion as to such products.

Nevertheless, even though the Defendant indicated “rice-Domestic Products” on the bulletin board of the restaurant, on June 3, 2014, the date and time of the crime is indicated as “the last day after April 2014.” However, the Defendant’s control over the date and time of the crime in this case by the National Agricultural and Fishery Quality Management Service is June 3, 2014, and the date and time of the crime are not disputed in this court, and there is no dispute in this court, and even if the date and time of the crime are specified around June 3, 2014, there is no risk of actual disadvantage in the Defendant’s exercise of his/her right to defense. Thus, the Defendant’s criminal facts are recognized by specifying the date and

Around that time, the U.S.A. purchased and mixed domestic rice, and then prepared and sold rice boom to customers who found the above D restaurant.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of E;

1. A statement of the details of detection and a report of illegal distribution;

1. Notification of the result of testing of samples;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes to photographs showing the violation scene, and photographs concerning receipt of reports on illegal distribution;

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

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

1. As to the Defendant’s assertion regarding the order of provisional payment under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, the Defendant asserted that the Defendant did not have intention since he prepared rice breath by using domestic rice, and that the Defendant used sulfur once as a mixture of imported rice on or around June 2014 due to the lack of inventory of products that had been ordered at ordinary level. However, the Defendant did not know that sulfur was mixed with imported rice.

The foregoing time limit is set.