logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산지방법원 2018.09.19 2018고정1332
식품위생법위반등
Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,500,000.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, the amount of KRW 100,000 shall be paid.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is a person who operates a general restaurant that mainly prepares and sells Korean-style food with the trade name of "C" in Busan Jung-gu.

1. No person who runs a general restaurant in violation of the Food Sanitation Act shall subdivide, transport, display or keep products, foods or raw materials thereof, for which the distribution deadline has passed, for the purpose of cooking and selling, or sell such products, foods or raw materials thereof or use them for the manufacture or processing of foods;

Nevertheless, on April 11, 2018, the Defendant stored two food 2 bottles (up to September 9, 2017; up to October 27, 2017; hereinafter “C”) in the main bank of the said “C” operated by himself/herself, the distribution deadline of which has elapsed, and two son (up to October 27, 2017: C: by January 23, 2018) and two sons (up to the distribution deadline: the date of indication by the distribution deadline: January 23, 2018) for cooking and selling.

2. No person who sells or provides agricultural and fishery products or the processed products thereof in violation of the Act on Origin Labeling of Agricultural and Fishery Products shall make a false indication of the place of origin or make an indication that may cause confusion therewith;

Nevertheless, the Defendant, at the time and place of the preceding one paragraph, prepared and sold in combination with the domestic swine scrapers, Netherlands, Netherlands, and German swine scrapers, but only used the domestic swine scrapers and the Korean swine scrapers at the Korean establishment.

In the form of a Stick, "The country of origin is likely to be confused separately with the country of origin."

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. On-site photographs (the Defendant argues that he did not use food milk in cooking and only saw that he received gifts, but considering the fact that he did not use it for food, that he used it for food milk in the pre-fluence disease, and that some of the discovered edible milk were removed, the Defendant’s assertion cannot be accepted.

The defendant was unaware of his knowledge in the air conditioners and inside and outside the air conditioners who have failed to meet the distribution period.

1.3.2

arrow