In a case where Defendant who operates a restaurant was indicted on charges of violating the Act on Origin Labeling of Agricultural and Fishery Products by indicating that “the Act on Origin Labeling of Agricultural and Fishery Products” was made with the indication that the country of origin of agricultural and fishery products is likely to be confused or that the said products were damaged, modified, stored, and displayed with the purpose of selling agricultural and fishery products for the purpose of selling them, on the ground that the Defendant did not have any indication that the country of origin of agricultural and fishery products was damaged, modified, or displayed with the indication of origin of agricultural and fishery products for the purpose of selling them.

In a case where the Defendant, who operates a restaurant, was prosecuted on charges of violating the Act on Origin Labeling of Agricultural and Fishery Products with the indication of the origin of agricultural and fishery products by keeping the country of origin of the rocketing used as a cooking material, such as a sugar, in the arsenium “A” and the domestic acid in the arsenium “A” and indicating only the outside arsenium “A” in the arsenium attached to the arsenium, the case holding that the Defendant acquitted the Defendant on the grounds that the origin of the arsenium was indicated in the “in the front of the laying “domestic acid” (hereinafter “domestic acid”) and the Defendant changed the origin of the arsen to “in the middle of Korea acid,” and that it could easily be seen that the origin of the arsenium stored in the arsenium was a heavy domestic product, or that it could not be concluded that the Defendant was not guilty on the grounds that there was any damage to the storage and alteration of the origin of agricultural and fishery products for the purpose of selling them through a disguised indication of the origin.

Article 6(2)1, 2, and (3), Article 18(1)1 of the Act on Origin Labeling of Agricultural and Fishery Products, Article 4 [Attachment Table 5] of the Enforcement Rule of the Act on Origin Labeling of Agricultural and Fishery Products, Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act

Defendant

Prosecutor

Scarland et al.

Attorney Park J-ho

Cheongju District Court Decision 2013Ma228 decided May 1, 2014

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant shall be innocent.

1. Summary of the grounds for appeal;

According to Non-Indicted 1, 2, and 3’s statements and the country of origin labeling pictures attached to the ○○○ Laun cafeteria cafeteria, etc., the Defendant kept the Republic of Korea rocketing in the outer right satisfaction of the above restaurant from around December 2, 2012 to March 27, 2013, while selling the Republic of Korea rocketing to customers as if he were domestic rocketing, and the Defendant indicated the origin of the Republic of Korea on the attached origin display board as “domestic rocketing” and sold the above cafeteria to customers as if he was a rocketing. Furthermore, it is recognized that the Defendant, on March 27, 2013, the date when it was controlled by the investigative agency of the above cafeteria, stated the origin of the above cafeteria on March 27, 2013, indicated “in Korea” (the purport of impairing and changing the country’s origin labeling by deleting the “in Korea”) and indicated that it could be combined with the instant facts charged by the Defendant with the purpose of selling it.

2. Determination

A. Ex officio determination

In the first instance of the trial, the prosecutor indicated the part of the facts charged of this case as follows: “The Defendant stored rocketing with the domestic origin, such as rice, distribution, and so on from December 2, 2012 to March 27, 2013, on the outer right-hand glass duct of the restaurant in Korea, and stored in the outer right-hand glass duct of the restaurant in the inner glass duct of the restaurant with the domestic origin, and only on the outside of the upper right-hand glass tank of the restaurant with the “China” (in the situation where the “domestic acid” is written, with the word “in the front,” and deleted, with the word “in the inside, damaged or changed the country of origin”, the Defendant applied for an amendment of the provisions of this case to the effect that it would no longer cause confusion with the domestic origin of agricultural and fishery products, and thus, the Defendant applied for an amendment of the provisions of this case to the rules of origin to the effect that it could no longer be sold.”

However, despite the above reasons for ex officio destruction, the prosecutor's assertion of mistake of facts is still subject to deliberation within the scope of the modified facts charged, and this is examined.

B. As to the assertion of mistake of fact

1) As to the violation of the Act on Origin Labeling of Agricultural and Fishery Products

원심이 적법하게 채택·조사한 증거에 의하여 인정되는 다음과 같은 사정들, 즉 ① 피고인이 운영하는 ○○쏘가리 식당에 대하여 수사기관의 원산지 표시 단속이 이루어질 당시 위 식당 외부의 우측 수족관에 부착된 원산지 표시판에는 쏘가리의 원산지가 ‘중국내산’(피고인이 ‘국내산’이라고 적어놓은 상태에서 앞에 ‘중’자를 적고 ‘내’자를 삭제한 것이다)으로 기재되어 있었던 점(증거기록 23면), ② 이에 대하여 피고인은 수사기관에서부터 원심 법정에 이르기까지 “겨울에는 중국산 쏘가리가 많이 들어와서 2012. 12. 초순경 중국산 쏘가리를 우측 수족관에 보관하면서 기존 원산지 표시판에 쏘가리의 원산지가 ‘국내산’으로 되어 있던 것을 ‘내’자를 지우고 ‘중국산’으로 고쳐 쓴 것이다.”라고 일관되게 주장하고 있는 점, ③ 쏘가리 납품업자인 공소외 1, 4의 각 진술, 피고인과 위 식당을 함께 운영한 공소외 5의 진술에 의하면, 실제로 피고인이 쏘가리의 월동기간인 2012. 12. 초순경부터 2013. 3. 말경까지 국내산 쏘가리의 공급이 적은 탓에 공소외 1 등으로부터 주로 중국산 쏘가리를 공급받아 이를 위 식당 외부 우측 수족관에 보관한 것으로 보이는 점, ④ 피고인이 위 식당 외부 우측 수족관에 부착된 원산지 표시판에 쏘가리의 원산지를 위 ①항과 같이 ‘중국내산’으로 변경한 방법, 그 표시 형태 및 내용 등에 의하면, 일반인의 입장에서 위 원산지 표시를 보고 해당 수족관 안에 보관되어 있는 쏘가리의 원산지가 중국산임을 쉽게 알 수 있다고 보이는 점, ⑤ 검사는 이 부분 공소사실 기재 기간 동안 피고인이 중국산 쏘가리를 위 식당 외부 우측 수족관에 보관하면서 그 원산지를 ‘국내산’으로 표시하였다가 단속일 직전에 위 표시를 급하게 ‘중국내산’으로 변경하였다고 주장하나, 피고인이 수사기관의 단속사실을 미리 알았다고 볼 만한 정황이 없고 달리 검사의 위 주장을 인정할 만한 증거가 없는 점(검사의 위 주장에 따르더라도 그와 같은 피고인의 행위는 ‘쏘가리의 원산지 표시를 거짓으로 한 행위’라고 할 것인데, 이는 이 부분 공소사실인 ‘피고인이 원산지를 혼동하게 할 우려가 있는 표시를 함과 동시에 원산지를 위장하여 판매할 목적으로 농수산물의 원산지 표시를 손상·변경하여 보관·진열하였다’는 것과 구별되고 달리 위 주장과 같은 내용이 별도로 공소제기된 바도 없다), ⑥ 한편 위 식당 내부에 게시된 메뉴판에 쌀, 배추, 소고기 등의 원산지가 국내산이라는 표시가 되어 있고 쏘가리 매운탕의 원산지에 관하여는 따로 표시가 없기는 하지만, 피고인이 쏘가리에 관하여 ‘국내산만 취급’한다는 취지로 위 식당 내부에 다른 재료들에 관한 원산지 표시를 하였다고는 보이지 않고, 위 식당 외부 우측 수족관에 쏘가리의 원산지에 관하여 앞서 본 바와 같이 ‘중국산’임을 알 수 있는 별도의 표시를 한 이상 일반인이 위 식당에서 다른 재료들에 관한 원산지 표시를 보고 그곳에서 조리·판매되는 쏘가리의 원산지를 국내산으로 오인할 가능성은 적다고 보이는 점, ⑦ 또한 검사는, 피고인이 위 식당 외부 좌측 수족관에 국내산 쏘가리를 보관하고 있으면서 우측 수족관에만 쏘가리의 원산지를 ‘중국산’으로 표시한 것은 그 자체로 원산지를 혼동하게 할 우려가 있는 표시에 해당한다는 취지로도 주장하나, 앞서 본 바와 같이 위 원산지 표시는 일반인의 입장에서 쏘가리의 원산지가 ‘중국산’이라고 분명하게 인식할 수 있는 것이고 피고인이 위 식당의 다른 곳에 쏘가리의 원산지를 오인하게 할 만한 이와 유사한 다른 표시를 한 바도 없는 이상 위와 같은 원산지 표시가 원산지를 혼동하게 할 우려가 있는 표시에 해당한다고 볼 수는 없는 주1) 점 [위 식당 외부의 좌측 수족관에 보관되어 있는 국내산 쏘가리에 관하여 별도의 원산지 표시를 하지 아니한 데 대하여 과태료의 책임을 지우거나( 농수산물의 원산지 표시에 관한 법률 제18조 제1항 제1호 ), 또는 국내산 쏘가리를 보관하고 있음에도 쏘가리의 원산지를 ‘중국산’으로 표시하였다고 보아 원산지 표시를 거짓으로 하였다거나( 농수산물의 원산지 표시에 관한 법률 제6조 제2항 제1호 전단), 나아가 국내산 쏘가리를 사실과 다르게 원산지를 기망하여 판매하였다면 원산지를 위장하여 조리·판매·제공한 행위가 문제될 수 있을 주2) 뿐이다 ( 농수산물의 원산지 표시에 관한 법률 제6조 제2항 제2호 전단)] 등을 종합하면, 피고인이 이 부분 공소사실과 같이 쏘가리의 원산지를 혼동하게 할 우려가 있는 표시를 하였다거나 원산지를 위장하여 판매할 목적으로 농수산물의 원산지 표시를 손상·변경하여 보관·진열하였다고 단정할 수 없고, 달리 이를 인정할 만한 증거가 없다.

Therefore, the decision of the court below that acquitted this part of the facts charged is just, and there is no error of law as alleged by the prosecutor.

2) As to fraud

The lower court consistently stated that the Defendant, as seen earlier, had no evidence to deem that the Defendant kept the Republic of Korea rocketing at the outside right satisfaction of the above restaurant as “domestic origin,” and sold it to customers. ② The Defendant consistently testified from the investigative agency to the lower court that there was no conspiracy between Nonindicted 5 and Nonindicted 3 to sell the food cooked at the domestic rocketing cooking; ③ Nonindicted 5, at the court of the first instance, stated that “the Defendant had invested funds in connection with the operation of the above restaurant, and did not participate in the specific operation of the above restaurant,” and ④ Nonindicted 3 did not have any other evidence to deem that the Defendant had sold it to the outside cafeteria at the time of the rocketing at the time of the purchase of the above restaurant, and there was no other evidence to deem that the Defendant had sold it to the outside cafeteria at home.”

Therefore, the decision of the court below that acquitted this part of the facts charged is just, and there is no error of law as alleged by the prosecutor.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and it is again decided as follows (as long as the judgment of the court is reversed, the prosecutor's appeal is not dismissed separately from the order).

1. Summary of the facts charged in this case

(a) Violation of the Act on Origin Labeling of Agricultural and Fishery Products;

From mid-200 to March 27, 2013, the Defendant stored rocketings in a restaurant with the origin of domestic acid used as cooking materials, etc., and stored in the outer right satisfaction duct outside the restaurant with the Republic of Korea, and stored in the outer right satisfaction duct outside the restaurant with the domestic acid “China” (e.g., “in the front of a restaurant with the sign “domestic acid,” and deleted from the front of the front of a restaurant with the sign “in the front of the domestic acid, thereby damaging or changing the origin mark). The Defendant stored in the restaurant with the mark of origin, such as rice, distribution, and scoo, only domestic acid, and did not damage or modify the origin for the purpose of selling agricultural and fishery products with the indication of the origin that may cause confusion with the country of origin, and at the same time, stored and displayed the origin of agricultural and fishery products for the purpose of selling.

(b) Fraud;

The Defendant, along with Non-Indicted 5, conspiredd to sell food cooked domestically with his partner Nonindicted 5 by deceiving customers as food cooked in the Republic of Korea, and the Defendant made a false statement of concern for confusion as to the origin of the food to the Mesium and the Mesium in the Mesium and the Mesium, and Non-Indicted 5 made a false statement to Non-Indicted 3 of the victim visiting the said restaurant as a customer at around March 15, 2013, at around 20:30 on March 15, 2013, the Defendant sold the Mesium in Korea and sold the Mesium in Korea and 200,000 won per 1km of the Mesium in Korea. However, in fact, the Defendant and Non-Indicted 5 gave the victim with the Mesium and the Mesium in Korea.

The Defendant and Nonindicted 5 received KRW 400,000 from the victim on the same day at around 22:15,00 from the victim as the price for rocketing.

2. Determination

The facts charged of this case constitute a case where there is no proof of crime for the reasons as seen earlier, and thus, it is so decided as per Disposition by the decision of not guilty of the defendant under the latter part of Article 325 of

Judges Kim Sung (Presiding Judge)

Note 1) According to Article 4 [Attachment 5](1) of the Enforcement Rule of the Act on Origin Labeling of Agricultural and Fishery Products, an indication that is likely to cause confusion with the country of origin refers to an indication of the country of origin in the indication column, such as packing materials, sign signs, promotional materials, etc., which have a similar indication to mislead the country of origin.

Note 2) According to Article 4 [Attachment 5](2) of the Enforcement Rule of the Act on Origin Labeling of Agricultural and Fishery Products, the disguised sale of the country of origin refers to “an act of making it difficult to indicate the country of origin, or an act of informing the country of origin differently from the fact while selling without marking.”