1. The judgment below is reversed.
2. Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 2,000,000.
3. The above fine shall be imposed on the defendant.
1. Summary of the facts charged
A. (1) From January 8, 2011 to October 24, 2012, the Defendant purchased, from the above F, etc., an amount equivalent to KRW 172,509,00 in the market price of used domestic agricultural products (such as green, rate, lux, lux, etc.) purchased from a one-person Bohal, without filing a report thereon with the Minister of Food and Drug Safety via 85 times, as shown in attached Table 1, from E in the D market located in Ji-si, Jin-si. to 201.
(2) On November 2, 2012, at around 16:15, the Defendant purchased, and stored, in the warehouse, any of the above F, etc., domestic green storage (5kg) 49 kg, 67 kh (5kg), 10 kh (5kg), 10 kh (5kg), 10 kh (5kg), and 10 kh from the aforesaid F, etc. for sale.
B. The Defendant in violation of the Customs Act purchased and acquired, at the above date, at the above time and place, heavy agricultural products (such as green, rate, lux, lux, etc.) equivalent to KRW 172,509,00 at the market price purchased by F, etc. without filing a report with the head of the customs office.
2. The lower court found the Defendant not guilty of all the facts charged in full view of the circumstances indicated in the lower judgment.
3. The summary of the grounds for appeal is reasonable to deem that the Defendant was aware of the fact that the instant agricultural products were not reported by F, or at least that it was not reported in light of the packaging form or price of the instant agricultural products, in light of F’s statement, seizure records, seized agricultural products photographs, etc., when engaged in the business of selling agricultural products for several years.
Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant not guilty of the facts charged, which erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
4. Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court’s judgment and the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court, the Defendant was supplied with domestic agricultural products from F.