logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원 부천지원 2017.09.01 2017고정763
축산물위생관리법위반
Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,000,000.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant is a person who runs a business specializing in the distribution of livestock products, “C,” in Bupyeong-si B and 301.

Where a business operator of processing livestock products intends to request a business operator of processing livestock products to distribute and sell processed livestock products using his/her own trademark, he/she shall be equipped with facilities and report thereon to the head of a Si/Gun/Gu.

Defendant

-Wocheon-si Mayor without reporting any livestock products (processed meat products) from January 2016 to January 5, 2017 at the same location, - 4,474 brying frying, frying, frying, frying, frying, frying, by entrusting D, one of its trademarks, to the public enterprises.

20kg) 709,474,228 Won and G Dog G 171 G 20,447,260 won distributed and sold 20,47,260 won.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Reporting on detection;

1. Photographss and field photographs of D products;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on certification, a copy of business registration certificate, a copy of a business report, a copy of a contract for supply of goods, and details of D sales;

1. Relevant Article 45 (6) 9 and Article 24 (1) of the Sanitary Control of Livestock Products Act concerning facts constituting an offense, and Articles 45 (6) 9 and 24 of the Sanitary Control Act, and selection of fines;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. The crime of this case is not likely to be committed on the grounds of sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act. However, considering the fact that the Defendant recognized the crime and reflects the fact that the Defendant was engaged in the business by reporting the distribution and distribution business specialized in food, and that the Defendant was unable to accurately know the duty to report the addition of new livestock products from January 2016, and thus was likely to be prevented from committing the crime of this case. Since long after the control of the crime of this case, the report on the distribution and sale business specialized in livestock products was filed, and there was no record of punishment for the same kind of crime, the punishment is determined as ordered.

arrow