logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2014.12.04 2014노1302
식품위생법위반
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is as follows: (a) the Defendant, without knowledge of the fact that the retail shop violated the law while supplying Modern rice tea to the street stores, removed and supplied indications meeting the standards of food, etc. indicating the supplier’s contact address by fear of direct contact to the supplier; (b) after the detection, there is no income in the present time, and there is no economic ability; (c) family’s livelihood is responsible for living; and (d) there is no specific criminal power other than three times of fines; and (e) the Defendant recognized all of the instant crimes and reflects in depth, the punishment imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. The following circumstances are considered favorable for sentencing: (a) the Defendant has no particular criminal history other than the Defendant’s three fines; (b) the recognition of the instant crime and the depth of the instant crime; and (c) his family’s livelihood is responsible for the livelihood; and (d) there are no particular incomes that are difficult to make a living.

However, the crime of this case does not sell Mad rice rice, etc. without the Defendant’s indication of food, etc. under the Food Sanitation Act at retail, but rather, the wholesale removing such indication for about 2 months has supplied about 46 million won to old stores with approximately 46 million Mod rice, and its supply mode cannot be deemed to be insufficient, together with the fact that the Defendant’s age, character and behavior, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, even if considering all the circumstances after the crime, it is too unreasonable to the extent that the sentence imposed by the court below should be reversed.

The defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing is without merit.

3. Accordingly, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the appeal by the defendant is groundless. It is so decided as per Disposition

arrow