The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

A, who did not know that his act constitutes a crime by misunderstanding the legal principles, does not constitute a crime of violating the Food Sanitation Act due to the lack of intention in violation of the Food Sanitation Act.

Therefore, as long as the defendant cannot be punished against A's act as above, the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles by applying Article 100 of the former Food Sanitation Act (amended by Act No. 11986, Jul. 30, 2013) to the defendant.

The punishment (one million won of fine) imposed by the court below on the defendant is too unreasonable.

Judgment

In light of the legal reasoning’s argument, Article 16 of the Criminal Act provides that “The act of a food service provider is not punishable only when there is a justifiable ground for misunderstanding that his act constitutes a crime under the law.” This does not mean a simple legal site, but it is generally a crime, but it is recognized that his act constitutes a crime but, in his special circumstances, it does not constitute a crime under the law, and if there is a justifiable ground for misunderstanding, it is not punishable (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Do3051, Sept. 29, 200).” In an investigative agency, A made a statement to the effect that “A made a statement to the effect that a food service provider would not be punished if he encourages an employee to receive money or valuables in return for time beyond the place of business or impliedly.” It is not a mere statement that his act constitutes a crime under the law, and thus, it does not constitute a crime under the Food Sanitation Act. Furthermore, the Defendant’s assertion in addition to the above one does not constitute a fine.