logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 2020.01.09 2019고정1046
농수산물의원산지표시에관한법률위반
Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 2,000,000.

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

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant is a person who operates a general restaurant called Daejeon-gu building B and the first floor “C”.

No person who sells or provides agricultural and fishery products or the processed products thereof after cooking them shall place a false mark of origin, or place a mark likely to cause confusion as such.

From April 29, 2018 to April 9, 2019, the Defendant purchased from Daejeon Dong-gu D (E) an original Korean 783.9km (6,776,760 won) in China, and cooked 779.85km, sold 3,466 figures (41,592,000 won) in the Republic of Korea, as original decoration Newchi, and displayed the 510km (395,900 won) in the Republic of Korea among domestic products from September 25, 2018 to April 8, 2019, the Defendant displayed 24 km in the Republic of Korea, and displayed the indication of origin in the Republic of Korea, among domestic kimchi, as Chinese Kimchi products (395,900 won) in the Republic of Korea, and displayed the indication of origin in the Republic of Korea as Chinese Kimchi products (1,152,000 won in the Republic of Korea).

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. A judicial police officer's interrogation protocol of the accused;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to photographs of on-site violations, investigation reports (verification of details of purchase of domestic ducks and anti-kimchi), copies of business registration certificates, and copies of business notification certificates;

1. Relevant laws concerning criminal facts, and Articles 14 (1) and 6 (2) 1 of the Act on Origin Labeling of Agricultural and Fishery Products and Selection of fines;

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

1. The reason for sentencing of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the order of provisional payment indicated that the Defendant, while operating a restaurant, has falsely indicated or may confuse the place of origin of original meat and quachi.

In light of the period, scale, etc., relatively less cases are not easy.

However, the defendant recognizes his mistake and is against his will.

Defendant has no record of punishment for the same kind of crime.

The same or similar circumstance is like or similar to this situation.

arrow