[1] The method of indicating origin under the Agricultural Products Quality Control Act where imported seeds are sold domestically

[2] Where imported U.S. seeds were sold in the Republic of Korea and marked the country of origin as a domestic product, the case holding that it constitutes “a mark likely to cause false or confused of the country of origin” under the Agricultural Products Management Act

[1] In light of the legislative purport of the Agricultural Products Quality Control Act that prohibits “a false or misleading indication of the place of origin,” and the provisions regarding the items subject to indication of the place of origin, method of indication, criteria for determination, etc., the imported seeds constitute goods processed domestically, especially imported agricultural products, from among the items subject to indication of origin. In such cases, domestic processed products must be marked with the country of origin in such a way as to indicate the place of origin of the raw materials in accordance with Article 15(2) of the Agricultural Products Quality Control Act, Article 24(1)3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Agricultural Products Quality Control Act, and Article 24(1) of the Enforcement Rule of the Agricultural Products Quality Control Act.

[2] In a case where imported American seeds were sold in the Republic of Korea and indicated the country of origin in the Republic of Korea, the case holding that the above order constitutes a "mark that is likely to cause mismark or confusion of the country of origin" under the Agricultural Products Management Act, since it constitutes a domestic processed product under the Enforcement Decree of the Agricultural Products Management Act and thus, it can be seen as an "domestic origin" as well as an "mark that is likely to cause mismark or confusion of the country of origin" in the Agricultural Products Management Act

[1] Article 15, Article 17 subparag. 1, and Article 34-2 of the Agricultural Products Quality Control Act, Article 24(1)3 and Article 25(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Agricultural Products Quality Control Act, Article 24(1) of the Enforcement Rule of the Agricultural Products Quality Control Act / [2] Article 15 of the Agricultural Products Quality Control Act, Article 24(1)3 and Article 25(2) of the Enforcement Rule of the Agricultural Products Quality Control Act, Article 24(1) of the Enforcement Rule of the Agricultural Products Quality Control Act

Defendant

Defendant and Prosecutor

Egrhion

Busan District Court Decision 2007Gohap6015 Decided January 21, 2008

All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant

(1) misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

Although the Defendant’s “mick,” a seed sold by the Defendant, is U.S., but it was cultivated and possible to cultivate that seed in the (trade name omitted) farm located in Gangseo-gu in Busan, Busan, the Republic of Korea, and in such a case, the act of cultivating and harvesting a net seed shall be deemed to be the production in the net. Thus, the country of origin is the Republic of Korea. Therefore, the Defendant’s act of labeling the country of origin by attaching a Stick with “in the Republic of Korea” on packaging materials, and the Defendant cannot be said to have falsely marked the country of origin, and even if not, it does not clearly stipulate the scope of the country of origin in the Agricultural Products Quality Control Act. In addition, the Defendant’s act stated in the facts charged in the instant case constitutes a case where there are justifiable grounds to believe that it does not constitute a crime under the law, and thus, the Defendant’s act should not be punished. However, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles and misapprehending the legal principles.

(2) Unreasonable sentencing

In light of all the sentencing conditions, including the following: (a) the product handled by the Defendant is mainly girent and net; (b) the sales profit of the Defendant acquired by the Defendant is less than 3,500 won (350 won x 100 won) due to the instant crime; (c) the Defendant indicated at the same time the “production” and the “sap production site” after the instant crime; and (d) the Defendant has indicated the origin of the agricultural product; and (c) the Defendant has no record of the same kind of crime, the sentence of the lower court against the Defendant is too excessive and inappropriate.

(b) An autopsy;

"Indications that may cause false or confusion of the place of origin" under the Agricultural Products Quality Control Act includes not only the place of origin of completed processed goods, but also the cases where the place of origin of raw materials used in the processed goods may be falsely indicated or confused. In light of the fact that the country of origin labeling is strict, considering the fact that the crime quality of the defendant's crime stated in the facts charged in this case is not weak, and there is no change of circumstances in the defendant after the indictment, the sentence imposed by the court below is too unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. Fact-finding and misapprehension of legal principles

(1) Article 34-2 of the Quality Control of Agricultural Products Act provides that “any person who violates the provisions of Article 17” shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than seven years or by a fine not exceeding 100 million won, and Article 17 subparag. 1 of the same Act provides that “any person who sells or processes agricultural products or processed agricultural products which have to place an indication of origin under Article 15(1) shall not place any false or misleading indication,” while Article 15 of the same Act provides that “the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry or the Minister of Maritime Affairs shall place an indication of origin on agricultural products and processed agricultural products which are prescribed by the Presidential Decree necessary for the establishment of order in the distribution of agricultural products” under paragraph (1) of the same Article, and Article 34-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Foreign Trade Act provides that “any person who sells or processes agricultural products or processed agricultural products whose country of origin is required to place an indication of origin under the provisions of paragraph (1) of this Article shall place an indication of origin on the agricultural products and processed agricultural products in question.”

In addition, Article 24 (1) 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provides that "the method of indicating the place of origin under the provisions of Article 15 (3) of the Act shall be as follows: - 3. In the case of domestic processed products (including imported processed products that are processed in Korea), the place of origin of raw materials shall be indicated in the order of content of the raw materials used in the processed products," and Article 24 (2) of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act provides that "the detailed matters concerning the domestic processed products under the provisions of paragraph (1) 3 shall be determined by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry". Accordingly, Article 24 (1) 1 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act provides that "the domestic processed products shall be indicated as raw materials for processed products falling under each of the following subparagraphs pursuant to the provisions of Article 24 (2) of the Decree:

According to the above provision and records, the non-nets sold by the Defendant constitute the items subject to origin labeling, among those items, domestic processed products, and those imported agricultural products, which are processed domestically. In this case, domestic processed products must be marked with the method of indicating the origin of the raw materials in accordance with Article 15(2) of the Agricultural Products Quality Control Act, Article 24(1)3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Agricultural Products Quality Control Act, and Article 24(1) of the Enforcement Rule of the Agricultural Products Quality Control Act, and Article 24(1) of the Enforcement Rule of the Agricultural Products Quality Control Act. Thus, the indication of the origin on the non-nets sold by the Defendant should also be marked with the formula of indicating the origin of the seeds, which are the

However, according to the records, the Defendant entered the phrase "domestic origin" on the Sticks attached to the packaging materials in selling the above order, and such phrase shall be deemed to be not only the net itself but also the indication of the origin of the material, and so long, it shall be deemed to constitute an indication that may cause a false indication or confusion as to the country of origin of the above order.

(2) Meanwhile, there is no question about how the Defendant’s act of indicating the country of origin as indicated in the facts charged in the instant case is a reliable institution. However, the mere fact that the Defendant’s act of this case does not conflict with the agricultural product quality control under the Agricultural Products Quality Control Act even if it is indicated as the facts charged with his experience that engaged in the agricultural product wholesale business for a period of 20 years does not constitute a case where there is a justifiable reason to believe that the Defendant’s act

(3) Therefore, there is no reason to reverse the facts and misapprehension of legal principles of the defendant.

B. The point of unfair sentencing

On the other hand, there are circumstances such as favorable circumstances as the defendant's assertion, on the other hand, considering the legislative purport of stipulating the duty to indicate the origin of agricultural products, social interest and interest therein, the attitude of the crime in this case, the reduction of fine by a summary order, and all other circumstances that form the basis for sentencing specified in the records of this case, such as the defendant's age, character and conduct, environment, motive for the crime in this case, and circumstances after the crime, the punishment imposed by the court below is deemed to be too heavy or unreasonable, and therefore, each appeal filed by the defendant and the prosecutor above is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, all appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

Judge Hong Sung-ju (Presiding Judge)