logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 2016.09.09 2016고정658
농수산물의원산지표시에관한법률위반
Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 700,000.

Where the defendant fails to pay the above fine, one hundred thousand won shall be one day.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant is a person who runs a mail-order sales company, which is called "D," in Daejeon Dong-gu C.

No person shall make a false indication of origin or make an indication that may cause confusion as to the origin.

However, from June 24, 2015 to January 18, 2016, the Defendant purchased at KRW 3 kinds (general, white, and family stuff) (general, 80km), 120 kilograms (15,000, 345,000 among this, to purchase at KRW 45,00,00 from the company “F” located in Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, in order to cause confusion with the country of origin, and to sell the remaining products for the same purpose as the 160 kilograms of rice pot (general, white, and family stuff).

As a result, the Defendant purchased imported rice tea, and conducted Internet mail order, and thus, indicated that it could cause confusion as to the place of origin of the entire pots of pots of rice, which is materials of pots of rice.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a copy of a business registration certificate, a copy of a business report, on-site filming of an enterprise violating;

1. Article 14 and Article 6 (1) 1 of the Act on Origin Labeling of Agricultural and Fishery Products and Selection of fines concerning facts constituting an offense, and Articles 14 and 6 (1) 1 of the same Act;

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

1. Circumstances unfavorable to the reasons for sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the Provisional Payment Order: The defendant sells the processed products of agricultural and fishery products to many and unspecified persons via the Internet, causing confusion with the country of origin labeling, which is more favorable to the risk: The defendant is extremely against the defendant; the defendant appears not to reach the crime of this case for the purpose of deceiving the country of origin labeling; the circumstance seems to be taken into account; and the defendant sells them.

arrow