Defendant

Yellow Dominc (Court Prosecution) and Court of Justice (Court of Justice)

Attorney Kim Han-han

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a year and six months, and a fine of KRW 1,000,000,000.

except that the execution of the above imprisonment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

When the defendant fails to pay the above fine, the defendant shall be confined in a workhouse for the period converted into one day.

In order to order the provisional payment of an amount equivalent to the above fine.

A person who intends to engage in food manufacturing and processing business shall report to the Governor of a Special Self-Governing Province or the head of a Si/Gun/Gu.

Nevertheless, without filing a report, the Defendant processed 00,000 won or more annual retail price of 50,000 won or more, as described in the attached Table of Crimes (1) and (2) in the manner of cutting off and washing clocks at the ○○ Fisheries establishment operated by the Defendant from March 10, 201 to December 6, 2012, which was located in Sacheon-si ( Address omitted) in the operation of the Defendant from March 10, 201.

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each statement made by Nonindicted 2, Nonindicted 1 (the Nonindicted Party in the Supreme Court judgment), and Nonindicted 4

1. The police statement of Nonindicted 5

1. Each statement on the preparation of Nonindicted 6, Nonindicted 7, Nonindicted 8, and Nonindicted 9

1. Each protocol of seizure and the list of seizure;

1. Investigation reports (the attachment of food manufacturing, processing-related documents, the confirmation of the records of administrative dispositions, the distribution companies, △△ Fisheries, △△ Fisheries, the execution results of the search and seizure warrant of △△ Fisheries, the attachment of photographs verifying △△ Fisheries sites, the attachment of △△ Fisheries site photographs, a written statement, the submission of a letter of confirmation to collect samples, the attachment of a letter of access to the collection of samples, health and sanitation in the

1. Three copies of a business report related to processed food of the Food Sanitation Act and a thorough notice thereof, a copy of the questionnaire on the conflict of the Food Sanitation Act, a copy of the response to the inquiry about Scheon-si, a copy of the ○○ Fisheries Manufacturing and Manufacturing Business License (report) ledger, a customer director, a customer director, a details of purchased goods, a transaction account book, a sales account book, a document of sales by item, a copy of the transaction account book of the △△ fishery processing business, a fishery product processing business (free and freezing places), a notice of registered matters, a freezing, a freezing, a freezing, a cooling business status (fishery products management), a mail management ledger, a

1. Non-licensed fish collection manufacturing company (○○ fishery), shotfics and photographs of the place of business, shotfics and photographs of the business (○○○ fishery), shotfics and photographs of the outside of the business body, shotfics and photographs of the execution of the warrant of search, seizure and verification of ○○ Fisheries, ○○ fishing freezing storage, 12 copies of the warrant of seizure of s○ fishery freezing storage, ○○ fishery seized articles and photographs of the shotfics and photographs thereof (32 copies), ○○ fishery seized articles and photographs of the execution of the warrant of seizure and search

1. Article relevant to the facts constituting an offense and the selection of punishment;

Article 2(1)2 of the Act on Special Measures for the Control of Public Health Crimes; Article 37(4) of the Food Sanitation Act (amended by Act No. 10787, Jun. 7, 2011); Article 2(2) of the Act on Special Measures for the Control of Public Health Crimes

1. Discretionary mitigation;

Articles 53, 55(1)3, and 55(1)6 of the Criminal Act (The following consideration of favorable circumstances among the reasons for sentencing):

1. Detention in a workhouse;

Articles 70 and 69(2) of the Criminal Act

1. Suspension of execution;

Article 62(1) and (2) of the Criminal Act (hereinafter referred to as the following consideration for repeated consideration of favorable circumstances among the reasons for sentencing)

1. Order of provisional payment;

Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. Summary of the defendant and his defense counsel

A. It is true that the Defendant continued to engage in the food production and processing business after completing a report on the food manufacturing and processing business on December 2, 2004, while reporting the closure of business on March 9, 201. However, the Defendant, prior to reporting the closure of business, completed the fishery product processing business registration under the Fishery Product Quality Control Act on February 16, 201, and the Enforcement Decree of the Food Sanitation Act provides that the Defendant may not report the business under the Food Sanitation Act when he/she completed the registration under the Fishery Product Quality Control Act.

B. Even if the Defendant’s business of collecting false fish products deviates from the registration of the fishery product processing business, the above business of collecting false fish products constitutes an exception provision under Article 25(2)6 of the Enforcement Decree of the Food Sanitation Act and is excluded from the business report.

C. In addition, the Defendant was subject to the control of the Defendant’s conduct of the business of the Food and Drug Administration without reporting the business thereof at the end of June, 2012, and the public official in charge at the time stated that “it continues to conduct the business of the Food and Drug Administration, as it is not subject to a business report at the main office of the Food and Drug Administration,” and did not report the business even thereafter, and thus, the Defendant did not have the awareness of illegality.

D. Accordingly, the Defendant is not guilty.

2. Determination

A. As to the Defendant’s and the defense counsel’s assertion of Paragraph A

1) Relevant statutory provisions

The details of the statutes and rules concerning the instant case are as shown in the attached Form.

2) The nature of the defendant's business of collecting fish;

A) According to the evidence duly examined in this court, the Defendant’s cala process of cala (fluoring: Purchase of raw materials: Purchase of inside air conditioning or freezing condition: ? cleaning and washing and screening of air stuffs: Classification by size (e.g., sorting the body and the bridge, respectively) ? packaging by weight or e.g., weight ? freezing ? freezing (e.g., storage in freezing and freezing facilities, maintenance of 25° e.g., storage of freezing and freezing facilities, maintenance of e.g.) ? shipment: Sales of the cala products manufactured as above. It is used in food cooking immediately after being delivered to a restaurant after packaging.

B) Meanwhile, the Food Sanitation Act provides that “food” as all food, and “food manufacturing and processing business” as “business of manufacturing and processing food,” and “food freezing and freezing business” as “business of preserving food by freezing or freezing food,” and excludes the freezing and refrigerating of fishery products. The Enforcement Decree of the Fishery Products Quality Control Act and the Quality Control of Fishery Products Act provides that “processed fishery products” shall be “processed products using fishery products as raw materials or materials in excess of 50%” and “business of processing food, etc. using fishery products as raw materials or materials” and “business of processing food, etc. using fishery products as raw materials or materials” and “business of processing or refrigerating the freezing and refrigerating fishery products from the ground” among the fishery product processing business. In addition, the Enforcement Rule of the Fishery Products Quality Control Act prescribes that the freezing and refrigerating business shall be registered separately as the raw materials and freezing business of fishery products and the fishery products processing and freezing business.

C) However, considering the circumstances as seen in paragraph (a) above, i.e., 100% of the raw materials of the above radioactive loan, the radioactive loan is close to 100%, the radioactive loan is cut to a certain size, making it difficult to identify its original form, and immediately after the operation, it is reasonable to deem that the Defendant’s radioactive loan processing business constitutes food processing business under the Food Sanitation Act and the freezing and freezing business under the Fishery Products Quality Control Act, for the business of processing food fee, etc. using fishery products as 50% or more of the raw materials.

3) Status of the Defendant’s business report and registration

A) On December 2, 2004, the Defendant reported the food manufacturing and processing business pursuant to the Food Sanitation Act, and reported the closure of business on March 9, 201.

B) On February 11, 2011, when the Defendant submitted an application for registration of the freezing and refrigerating business among the fishery product processing business to the Sacheon City Mayor, the Defendant stated the type of processing business as “freezing and refrigerating business,” and stated the type of products to be processed in the business plan submitted as attached documents, as stated in Paragraph A (a). However, subparagraph 16 of the attached Form 16 of the Enforcement Rule of the Fishery Products Quality Control Act, which was in force at the time, stated that the freezing and refrigerating business was prepared in the column of “type of products to be processed” by dividing the freezing and refrigerating business into “fishery products in the original condition” or “fishery products in the treatment of fishery products,” but the Defendant did not separately state the type of the freezing and refrigerating business as above.

C) At the time, Nonindicted Party 1, a public official in charge, examined the business plan and visited the business site, and issued to the Defendant a certificate of registration with regard to the type of processing business as “fishery products primely operated.”

D) Meanwhile, the Enforcement Rule of the Fishery Products Quality Control Act provides that an application for registration of fishery product processing business shall be issued only in cases where the application for registration is deemed to meet the registration standards after reviewing the business plan, processing plant’s building and other facilities, etc., and the application for registration of fishery product processing business shall not be filed if the application for registration of fishery product processing business operator fails to meet the registration standards. Therefore, even if the defendant applied for registration of fishery product processing business for the purpose of operating fishery product processing business, since the public official in charge examines the application for registration of the defendant and determined that the application for registration of fishery product processing business was satisfied and issued the registration certificate of fishery product processing business to the defendant, the business that the defendant can operate

(iv) a business subject to reporting or registration as prescribed by the Food Sanitation Act;

A) The Food Sanitation Act provides that food manufacturing business, processing business, transportation business, retail business, and preservation business, as prescribed by Presidential Decree, shall be subject to reporting on business. On December 8, 2012, the Food Sanitation Act, which was enforced on December 8, 2012, was amended to make some of the above businesses subject to reporting on business, and to make some of them subject to reporting on business.

B) Before the amendment on July 22, 2012, the Enforcement Decree of the Food Sanitation Act stipulated food manufacturing and processing business as the subject of a business report, and the Enforcement Decree of the Food Sanitation Act amended on July 22, 2012 changed the food manufacturing and processing business into the subject of business registration, not the business report. However, since the Food Sanitation Act which changes food manufacturing and processing business to the subject of business registration takes effect only on December 8, 2012, the revised Enforcement Decree of the Food Sanitation Act still remains effective until December 7, 2012, which is prior to the change of food manufacturing and processing business to the business registration under the Food Sanitation Act, notwithstanding the amended Enforcement Decree of the Food Sanitation Act, it is reasonable to view that the food manufacturing and processing business is the subject of business report.

C) On the other hand, the Enforcement Decree of the Food Sanitation Act, before and after the amendment, excludes the person subject to business report or business registration where the person conducts the fishery product processing business after registering the business in accordance with the Fishery Product Quality Control Act.

D) Therefore, in a case where the Defendant runs a fishery product processing business after filing a registration under the Quality Control of Fishery Products Act, it may not be subject to separate completion of a business report or registration under the Food Sanitation Act. However, since the Defendant completed the registration of “fishery product-processing partnership” among the fishery product processing business, it cannot be deemed that it constitutes “a case of operating the fishery product processing business after filing a registration of fishery product processing business,” under the proviso to the Enforcement Decree of the Food Sanitation Act, and the Defendant should separately complete the registration of the fishery product processing partnership business among the fishery product processing business, or complete the report or registration of the food manufacturing and processing business under the Food Sanitation Act.

5) Sub-committee

Therefore, since the Defendant was engaged in food processing business without reporting business under the Food Sanitation Act, this part of the argument by the Defendant and the defense counsel cannot be accepted.

B. As to the Defendant and the defense counsel’s assertion of Paragraph B

Article 25(2)6 of the Enforcement Decree of the Food Sanitation Act and Article 26-2(2)6 of the Enforcement Decree of the Food Sanitation Act include processing of agricultural products, forest products, or fishery products so that the state of food can be confirmed as an lux test by simply cutting, breaking, melting, salting, melting, melting, heating, heating (excluding cases where such processing is intended to cause a significant change in ingredients, or to cause a significant change in ingredients; hereinafter the same shall apply), without using food additives or other raw materials, such processing is excluded from those subject to business notification or business registration.

Therefore, as to whether the defendant's business of collecting fish constitutes it, it is done in the same procedure as above (A) 2). The defendant's business of collecting fish is done in the same manner as above (a). The products produced therefrom are directly used for cooking food.

As above, it is not simply a method of calcling off a calcule, but rather a method of removing a calcule by calculing a freezing calcule, removing a calcule, separating the body calcule from a calcule and a bridge, and then freezing the body calcule well. In this process, it is difficult to confirm the original form of calcule as well as the state of calcule in the calcule as it is difficult to confirm the state of calcule in the calcule, it is difficult to view the above calcule processing business to constitute an exception to business reports and registration under the Enforcement Decree

C. As to the Defendant and the defense counsel’s argument

According to the investigation report (Non-Indicted 2's report on non-Indicted 3's telephone statement). Non-Indicted 3, who is a public official of the Busan Regional Food and Drug Administration, regulates whether the defendant violated ○○○ fishery product weight labeling that he operated by the investigation team around June 2012, and Non-Indicted 3 confirmed that the defendant's business was closed at the time of receipt of a written statement concerning non-reported business, and asked the Commissioner of the Korea Food and Drug Administration on July 5, 2012 as to whether the processed food products are processed fishery products or non-indicted 4's processed food products are processed fishery products, and the Commissioner of the Korea Food and Drug Administration sent to the Korea Food and Drug Administration's non-indicted 2's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 2's non-indicted 2's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 3's non-indicted 2's non-indicted clive food food food product processing business's non-indicted 3's business report or non-indicted 2's's processed food products.

In light of the above evidence alone, it is insufficient to recognize that the public official in charge of the Food and Drug Administration, without reporting the business under the Food Sanitation Act, said public official’s business was good for the defendant, and according to the above evidence, the so-called Sacheon City already informed the defendant of the facts subject to the business report under the Food Sanitation Act on February 2012, which is the control prior to the control, so this part of the defendant’s assertion is not acceptable (the defendant understood that the part of the above public official’s “e.g.,” in the above public notice, is understood as indicating the business that does not require the business report under the Food Sanitation Act, and construing the above public notice as ordinary person’s social norms. However, considering the fact that the public official in charge of the Food and Drug Administration stated the food processing business as a type of business subject to the business report under the Food Sanitation Act, and the main text of the Food Sanitation Act defined the processed food under the Food Sanitation Act as a “recognized food,” it is reasonable to view the above example portion as an example under the Food Sanitation Act as well as a public official in charge.

1. Scope of punishment that this court may choose;

Imprisonment 1 year and six months - Fines 979,481,950 won - 2,448,704,875 won

2. Determination of sentence;

Food is a product that must be naturally taken in for survival and directly affects the health of the people. As such, the Food Sanitation Act regulates food manufacturers and processors to engage in food manufacturing and processing business after filing a report. In particular, since the Defendant’s business of collecting and processing fishery products that are highly likely to be deteriorated as a raw material is subject to strict registration standards in accordance with the relevant statutes, such as the Food Sanitation Act and the Fishery Product Quality Control Act, and regulates them by examining whether they are qualified for registration and determining whether they are registered with the competent administrative agency. Nevertheless, even though the Defendant had been sentenced to the suspension of the execution of ten years on February 2, 2005 due to the crime of violating the Food Sanitation Act, he was engaged in the same kind of crime without filing a business report under the Food Sanitation Act, and did not violate the Food Sanitation Act, and the period of crime was two years, and the retail price of the products processed and sold by the Defendant was more than 900 million won, and thus, the Defendant’s business is not somewhat liable for such crime.

However, the defendant did not report the business of the Food Sanitation Act from the beginning, but did not report the business closure under the Food Sanitation Act with the intention of operating the business of processing fish products under the Food Sanitation Act, but reported the closure of business operation under the Food Sanitation Act for the purpose of operating the fishery product processing business after completing the registration of fishery product processing business under the Quality Control of Fishery Products Act. Unlike the defendant's intent, it appears that the defendant did not obtain the registration of fishery product processing partnership business and received the registration of fishery product original decision-making business under the Food Sanitation Act, and that the defendant did not have any criminal record of the same kind of crime or suspended execution or above except the above criminal record, and the defendant's age, character, character, environment, circumstances and result of the crime of this case, and all of the sentencing conditions specified in the argument

[Attachment]

Judge Lee Dong-soo (Presiding Judge)

1) However, since the Fishery Products Quality Control Act was repealed on July 22, 2012, registration under the Fishery Products Quality Control Act can be made only prior to that date, and thereafter only a report or registration under the Food Sanitation Act may be made.