logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 전주지방법원 남원지원 2016.04.19 2016고정3
친환경농어업육성및유기식품등의관리ㆍ지원에관한법률위반
Text

A defendant shall be punished by a fine of 500,000 won.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is a representative of C Agricultural Partnership (a corporation established for the purpose of selling pro-friendly and environmentally friendly agricultural and fishery products in North Chang-gun D).

No one shall advertise any product not certified as an agricultural product without an agricultural product as a certified product, or advertise such product to mislead people into thinking such product is a certified product, or advertise such product differently from the certified product.

Nevertheless, the Defendant, at the Internet site of “C Subdivision” (E) sold unregistered agricultural products to many unspecified persons via the said site, advertised DNA products that did not obtain certification from July 2015 to August 2015, and advertised them as certified products by marking an agricultural product certification mark and certification number (F, revocation of certification by the F, June 29, 2015).

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Application of notified Acts and subordinate statutes to the C molecular site closure data and the results of verification of eco-friendly certification numbers;

1. Article 60 (1) 13 and subparagraph 8 of Article 30 of the Act on the Support and Management of Organic Food, Etc., concerning the relevant criminal facts, fostering the elective farming and fishing industry, and managing and supporting organic food, etc.;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. The punishment is determined as per Disposition by comprehensively taking into account the following: (a) the purpose of the sentencing of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act is not that of deceiving the consumers on a planned basis (which appears to have been committed by willful negligence); (b) the Defendant appears to be against the Defendant; (c) the additional profits earned by the Defendant from the instant crime appears not to have been high; and (d) some of the criminal facts in the summary order were withdrawn by the prosecutor as a modification of the indictment.

arrow