logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 2019.10.31 2019고정824
식품위생법위반
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 in the name of Seo-gu, Daejeon.

Food service business operators shall observe the matters to be observed by business operators, such as "where they use groundwater, etc. which is not tap water, which is not drinking water, for cooking, washing, etc., under Article 44 of the Food Sanitation Act, by drinking water quality testing institutions under Article 43 of the Drinking Water Management Act, which are deemed suitable for drinking water after undergoing inspections, as prescribed by Ordinance of the Prime Minister."

The Defendant, as a result of collecting groundwater on March 22, 2019 and requesting water quality inspection, was equipped with three water pipes, six air conditioners, one food material storage warehouse, and other facilities, and used in operating C from Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Daejeon to December 8, 2014 to March 22, 2019 as groundwater that did not undergo groundwater quality inspection. As a result of the Defendant’s request for water quality inspection, the Defendant determined that the total fung-gun, girine, and galine, etc. were detected, and determined as inappropriate in drinking water standards.

Accordingly, the defendant violated the obligation of the business operator by using groundwater without undergoing groundwater quality inspection.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

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

1. The application of Acts and subordinate statutes to photographs of groundwater use site, certificates of collecting groundwater, records of collecting samples, examinations, examination records, forwarding of business reports, and copies of business reports;

1. Relevant laws concerning criminal facts, the choice of punishment, and Article 97 subparagraph 6 of the Food Sanitation Act, Article 44 (1) 4 of the Act on the Selection of Fines;

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

1. The defendant, on the grounds of sentencing of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the provisional payment order, did not undergo water quality testing with respect to groundwater used to freezing the frozen products and clean the cooking apparatus.

The core of general restaurants can be used in the sanitation of restaurants.

arrow