Whether the net and meat of the former Food Sanitation Act are subject to permission for the manufacture of meat (affirmative)

According to Articles 23(1) and 22(1) of the former Food Sanitation Act (amended by Act No. 3823, May 10, 1986) and Article 9(1)32 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 12,000, Nov. 11, 1986) as well as Article 9(1)32 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, it is similar respectively to net straw, base shot and beecon, and they are included in the items subject to permission for meat manufacturing business.

Articles 22(1) and 23(1) of the former Food Sanitation Act (amended by Act No. 3823, May 10, 1986); Article 9(1)32 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 12,000, Nov. 11, 1986)

Supreme Court Decision 81Do80 Delivered on October 13, 1981

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney Kim Jae-sik

Seoul High Court Decision 87No1245 delivered on December 18, 1987

The appeal is dismissed.

As to the Grounds of Appeal:

According to Articles 23(1) and 22(1) of the former Food Sanitation Act (amended by Act No. 3823, May 10, 1986) and Article 9(1)32 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 12,000, Nov. 11, 1986), a person who intends to engage in the business of manufacturing ham, sast, sast, beer, bacon, sacon, or sacon, or other similar products with water or eggs as main ingredients shall obtain permission for meat food manufacturing business. Since the net and bacon, which is a problem in this case, are similar to rocketing and bacons, they are included in the items subject to permission for meat manufacturing business, they cannot be accepted since the standards and specifications prescribed in the Food Sanitation Act with respect to the manufacture of net and bacons, and thus, they cannot be accepted from the category subject to permission.

In addition, according to the records, although the defendant acquired a public restaurant license in his wife's name and established a place of business, it is recognized that he manufactured it in a large amount and manufactured it in each restaurant rather than that he operated a public restaurant business, and that he operated a public restaurant business in his wife. Thus, it is also difficult to accept the theory that the defendant only operated a public restaurant business by cooking the patrol and letter in the public restaurant's store and selling it to the customers in that place. All arguments are groundless.

Therefore, the defendant's appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Kim Yong-ju (Presiding Justice)