In a case where the defendant was prosecuted for committing the act of deceiving customers as if he had the place of origin on the New Market because he had used imported food ingredients while operating a restaurant, prepared and provided a Chinese secondary food material, and stated the place of origin on the New Market as domestic food ingredients and sculbs, thereby deceiving customers as if they were Korean food ingredients and sculbs, the case holding that the defendant cannot be deemed to have used a restaurant in the place of origin marking the place of origin on the New Market because, in light of the fact that the defendant used a Chinese secondary food material processed as 20,000 won, such as sculbs, processed in the 20,000 Korean primary raw material as sculbs in the Jeonnam-gun legal sculbs, and that the domestic production expenses of the same size as the Korean secondary food material used in the above restaurant are above 20,00

Article 347(1) of the Criminal Act

Defendant

Defendant

Cheongju District Court Decision 2015No119 decided July 29, 2015

The part of the judgment below against the defendant shall be reversed, and the case shall be remanded to the Cheongju District Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

The lower court affirmed the first instance judgment that convicted all of the facts charged of the instant case on the ground that the Defendant, while operating the instant restaurant, violated the Act on Origin Labeling of Agricultural and Fishery Products by falsely stating that the place of origin is different from the fact, by falsely indicating that the Defendant was the domestic origin of the cattle, swine scrap, dissolved goods, and live-out goods in the Meap New Market, and thereby by using the imported food materials as above, and preparing and providing the domestic fathery, but deceiving customers as if they were domestic food materials and domestic production expenses, and thereby deceiving them as if they were the food materials and domestic production expenses.

In order to establish fraud, there should be causation between deception, mistake, and property disposal act, and from this perspective, it is necessary to examine whether the court below found the guilty of fraud among the facts charged in the instant case.

According to the records, the defendant used Chinese father 20,00 won in 20,000 won clorries or 25,000 to 5,000 won clorgy for digging expenses on the KOSgy. The size of Korean father clorgy used at the instant restaurant is 25-30 cm with 25,000 to 7,000 won per 1mari, and the same size of domestic clorgy is higher than 20,000 won per 1mari, and the defendant indicated as domestic clorg, swine, swine, dissolution, and clorg that is part of the food materials among the various clorgs provided at the instant restaurant.

In addition to the Defendant’s statement that, if the Defendant asked questions from customers whether “the Defendant has a high level of mining costs,” the Defendant respondeds to the Defendant’s assertion that he was processed in the former Yong-gun legal Manam-gun, then it is difficult to deem that the customers used the instant restaurant by falling under the place of origin indication, which is the domestic origin indicated in the Q New Market.

Nevertheless, the lower court upheld the first instance judgment that found the Defendant guilty of fraud among the facts charged in the instant case on the premise that there exists a causal relationship between the Defendant’s deception and the dispositive act of customers. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the causal relationship in fraud, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below against the defendant should be reversed. Since one sentence was rendered on the grounds that the violation of the Act on Origin Labeling of Agricultural and Fishery Products and the concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act against the defendant among the judgment below, the part against the defendant among the judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent

Justices Kwon Soon-il (Presiding Justice)