A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than five months and a fine not exceeding three million won.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine.

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant is the representative of the “C” aimed at the wholesale business, etc. of fishery products in Suwon-si, Suwon-si B market.

No person shall make a false indication of origin or make an indication that may cause confusion as to the origin.

Nevertheless, from September 11, 2017 to March 23, 2018, the Defendant purchased and sold a Morocco water storage fish from D from the above “C”, thereby falsely indicating the origin of the Morocco oil as “domestic origin” and selling KRW 54 million in total at the market price of Morocco C’s water storage fish 1460km.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Reporting on the results of investigation (including the purchase, etc. of photographs of the status of origin and genetic analysis samples), reporting on the results of investigation (including genetic analysis results of electronic analysis), including genetic testing samples, etc.;

1. Details of detection and data on distribution track record of imported products;

1. Application of the statutes on the place of detection, photographs of origin labeling, and specifications of transactions;

1. Relevant Article on criminal facts, Articles 14 (1) and 6 (2) 1 of the Act on Origin Labeling of Agricultural and Fishery Products, imprisonment and fine concurrently;

1. Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (The following extenuating circumstances among the reasons for sentencing);

1. Judgment on the Defendant’s assertion under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The gist of the assertion was that the Defendant kept separate storages of imported acid and domestic acid in separate storages, and even if sold to customers, the Defendant sold them at a different price between imported acid and domestic acids. Around March 23, 2018, the control date of the instant case, a mark attached to the imported acid number was easible, and the imported acid number was easible, and it was confirmed that the imported acid number, which was under that number, exceeded the number of domestic acids on the side, and the control results were combined with the imported acid number on the side, and that there was both domestic acid and the imported acid.

2. According to each of the above evidence, we examine the judgment.