Ga. Violation of the Act on Origin Labeling of Agricultural and Fishery Products

B. Violation of the Foreign Trade Act

1. A;

2. B

3. C Stock Companies.

C 'Representative Director'

(b) Huntings (prosecutions) and Yellow Jinia (public trial)

A'Law Firm A'(private election for the defendant)

May 30, 2013

Defendant A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor of one year and a fine of 10,000,000 won, by imprisonment with prison labor of one year and six months and a fine of 10,000,000 won, and by a fine of 50,000,000 won for Defendant A and B. When Defendant A and B fail to pay each of the above fines, the Defendants shall be confined in the workhouse for the period calculated by converting 50,000 won into one day.

Criminal facts

Defendant A is a person who operates B in Gyeonggi-do Do and retail chain in Gyeonggi-si, and Defendant B is a managing director of the C Co., Ltd. located in Gangseo-gu, Busan, who is in charge of the purchase and export of the land of the said C Co., Ltd., and Defendant C Co., Ltd is a corporation whose purpose is to carry on boom export business.

1. Defendant A and B

Defendant A and B merely exported from Company C to Japan or intended to procure the quantity of booms that are distributed in the Republic of Korea on the basis of the fact that it is difficult for Company C to procure the quantity of booms exported from Company C or distributed in the Republic of Korea, and purchased booms from an importing company of the Republic of Korea who is difficult to meet the unit price such as the price, and had the place of origin either exported to Japan or sold in the Republic of Korea.

A. On September 25, 2010, Defendant A removed a package with a mark of 20 km 50 km in China imported from China, Defendant A, with a mark of 1,000 km in China, from the Republic of Korea. Defendant A supplied C Co., Ltd. a total sum of 338,300 g (amount of delivery, 803,639,500 g) over 92 times in total, from that time to February 21, 2013, with a mark of 1,000 g) used for distributing domestic booms, and re-packaged with a domestic bred confirmation document and attached it to C Co., Ltd., as if it was domestic bred by the aforementioned method until February 21, 2013, as shown in the list of crimes (1).

B. On September 27, 2010, Defendant B: (a) mixed domestic products with KRW 3,360 km 2,90 g in China delivered by the above C Co., Ltd. with KRW 386,950 g (export price: KRW 1,183,761,273) and exported them to Japan, as if they were 50 g in total, KRW 3,360 g in total, as if they were domestic products, and (b) obtained a certificate of origin from Busan Chamber of Commerce and Industry as if they were domestic products; and (c) from then on February 22, 2013, Defendant B, as if they were in total, KRW 386,950 g in total, 110 g in total and KRW 1,183,761,273 in total, KRW 50 in total, 30 g in total, domestic retail 90 g in total, domestic 30 g in total, domestic g 20100 g g in total.

2. Defendant C Company

As between September 24, 2010 to February 22, 2013, the Defendant, who is a managing director, made a false statement with regard to the Defendant’s business, as described in the Schedule of Crimes (2) in attached Form B, in the same manner as described in paragraph (1).

By obtaining a certificate of origin or falsely indicating the country of origin, China's country of origin is pretended to be Korea and exported as if it were Korea, and between November 14, 2010 and February 3, 2013, the country of origin was falsely marked as agricultural and fishery products in the attached list (3) in accordance with paragraph (1).

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ partial statement

1. Each prosecutor's protocol of examination of the defendant A and B;

1. Each police officer's statement of J, K, L, and M;

1. Each investigation report (only an indication by number 14, 15, 16, 17, 30, 31, 63, hereinafter referred to as the "number")

1. Each protocol of seizure and the list of seizure;

1. The details of the shipment of the Japanese export cargo ship, and the certificate of origin fabricated into each country;

1. Each E seized article (54 through 58), each C Seized article (60, 61, 62);

1. A, B, C, or D (69 through 72) based on the basis of preparation;

1. The details of H-E sales, details of H export and import, and application of statutes on export and import details of C;

1. Article relevant to the facts constituting an offense and the selection of punishment;

(a) Defendant A and B: Articles 14 and 6(1) of the Act on Origin Labeling of respective Agricultural and Fishery Products, subparagraphs 4 and 38 of Article 53-2 of the Foreign Trade Act, and both imprisonment and fine;

(b) Defendant C Stock Company: Articles 17, 14, and 6(1) of the Act on Origin Labeling of Agricultural and Fishery Products;

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Defendants: former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act

1. Detention in a workhouse;

Defendant A and B: Articles 70 and 69(2) of the Criminal Act

Grounds for sentencing

① In common, in the modern society where most general public should purchase and take in agricultural and fishery products necessary for the survival of the Defendants, the origin labeling of agricultural and fishery products is important information that guarantees consumers’ choice on whether to purchase the agricultural and fishery products. The consumers verify not only the quality of agricultural and fishery products but also the safety of such products through the origin labeling of agricultural and fishery products. As such, it is necessary to strictly implement the origin labeling of agricultural and fishery products and ensure the safety of food for the general public as well as the safety of the general public. as an unfavorable sentencing factor that is disadvantageous to the scale of transactions, it is a summary of sentencing that continuously prevents the instant crime in order not to lose the trading line. ② As the sentencing factor that is favorable to the Defendant A, it is located in the place where the family is to support the Defendant, and it is against the fact that the previous conviction factor is somewhat unfavorable to the Defendant B, ③ as the sentencing factor that is likely to support their families, the fact that many volunteer activities have been committed, and the fact that there are favorable factors to the previous sentencing factors, the age, method and method of the instant crime, etc.

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.

Judges Cho Jae-chul