Defendant shall be punished by a fine of two million won.

If the defendant fails to pay the above fine, 50,000 won shall be one day.

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is a person who operates a general restaurant in the trade name B at a leisure time.

From February 2, 2012 to June 9, 2012, the Defendant purchased from Franchichi 250kg in Korea from Franchi, and prepared and sold it in the above restaurant for the purpose of opening it, and falsely marked the origin of franchi on the indication board of origin in the business establishment to use approximately KRW 227 km out of the purchasing quantity, and kept approximately approximately KRW 27 km for the purpose of using it.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. The defendant's certificate;

1. Evidence and photographs of the detection site;

1. A copy of a receipt evidence photograph;

1. Application of investigation reports (Details of purchase of domestic culture-based kimchi)-related Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Article 15 of the Act on Origin Labeling of Agricultural and Fishery Products and Articles 6 (2) 1 of the Act on Origin Labeling of Agricultural and Fishery Products and Selection of fines for criminal facts;

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

1. The defendant's assertion under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the provisional payment order, and the judgment of the defendant is against the defendant's assertion of the defendant, and the defendant asserts that, although protek Kimchi, which was prepared and sold for the purpose of the Kimchi, is a Chinese emulk Kim, it is merely a Korean emulk Kim, and a Korean emulk Kim whose country of origin is indicated in the indication board of origin is merely a Korean emulk Kim, and it does not indicate the country of origin of prokk Kim offered for the purpose of the Kimchi.

However, according to the above evidence, the fact that the defendant used for the repair of kimchi is a Chinese country, the fact that the defendant stated "all anti-doctrine products, such as rice and quachi" in the indication board of origin, and the fact that the defendant stated "all anti-doctrine products, such as Korean agricultural and fishery products" in the indication board of origin. According to Article 3 (5) 6 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on Origin Labeling of Agricultural and Fishery Products, the fact of the above recognition stipulates that the quachik Kim will be provided for a qua