In a case where Defendant A’s de facto representative of the Defendant A’s corporation was indicted on charges of violating the standards for using food additives under the Food Sanitation Act by selling fishery fluorium added and processed fishery fluorium to the imported freezing, without being utronizing or removing it before completion of the final food, the case holding that Defendant B used fishery fluorium as food additives, reactioned with fishery fluorium by using fluorium as food additives, which eventually processed fluorium itself, and that the final processed fluorium in itself has a strong dluority, compared with the processed fluorium, thereby causing danger and injury to sanitation.

Article 1, Article 2 subparag. 2, Article 7(1) and (4), and Article 100 of the Food Sanitation Act, Article 95 subparag. 1 of the former Food Sanitation Act (Amended by Act No. 11986, Jul. 30, 2013)

Defendant 1 and one other

Prosecutor

Busan District Court Decision 2013No4134 Decided June 13, 2014

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Busan District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the acquittal portion

A. The summary of the charge of this case and the judgment of the court below are as follows.

Defendant 1 added dynaium to dyna and processed dynaium, and sold it without emphasizing or removing it before the final food completion. Defendant 2 Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Company”) violated the standards for the method of using food additives with respect to Defendant Company’s business as above. As to this part of the facts charged, the lower court found Defendant 1 not guilty of the facts charged on the following grounds: (a) in order for Defendant 1 to increase dynaium dynaium dynaium dynaium dynaium dynaium dynaium dynaium dynaium dynaium dynaium dynaium dynaium dynaium dynaium dynaium dynaium dynaium dynaium dynaium dynaium dynaium dynaium dynaium dynaium dynaium dynaium d.

B. However, it is difficult to accept the above determination by the court below for the following reasons.

(1) Article 7(1) of the Food Sanitation Act provides that the Minister of Food and Drug Safety shall determine and publicly notify methods of using food additives for sale, when necessary for national health, and Article 7(4) of the same Act provides that food additives, the standards for which are determined pursuant to the above Article 7(1), shall be used in accordance with such standards and shall not sell foods or food additives that do not meet such standards. Article 95 Subparag. 1 of the same Act provides that a person who violates the provisions of Article 7(4) shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than five years or by a fine not exceeding 50 million won, or both penalties may be imposed. Article 7(1) of the same Act provides that "the standards and specifications of food additives", which are publicly notified by the Minister of Food and Drug Safety pursuant to Article 7(1) of the same Act, shall be the standards for the use of fishery flowers or thorium, and fishery

The purpose of the Food Sanitation Act is to contribute to the improvement of national health by preventing sanitary harm caused by food (Article 1 of the Food Sanitation Act). In light of the fact that the fishery chloride has strong salt so that it can be harmful to the human body in a case where intakes it, it has chemical properties harmful to the human body. In a case where a certain food is used as food as a food additives, and the food has a strong dysium in the process of responding to fishery dysium, thereby raising the strong sysium in the final food, and thereby there is a risk of causing sanitary harm due to this, it should be deemed that the fishery dysium did not have any ero

(2) However, according to the evidence duly admitted and rejected by the lower court, the following facts can be acknowledged.

① Defendant 1 stated in the following purport: (a) the imported freezing was stored in the dilution amount of fishery dilution; (b) the dilution amount was discarded; and (c) the water was processed by means of containing tap water; and (d) Defendant 1 entered in the specific process to the effect that Defendant 1 stored the 5% fishery dilution amount of 5% fishery dypium dypium dypium dypium dypium for 11 to 24 hours; and (c) as a result, Defendant 1 entered the crypium dypium dypium dypium dypium dypium dypium

② The police officer in charge of the investigation of the instant case measured the pH value of the said three products to the extent of 10 to 11, on the ground that the Defendant 1 processed and sold to ○○○ by Defendant 1, placed an order through the Internet for freezing sloaks, freezing sloaks, freezings, and freezing products, and immediately operated the delivered products on the Internet, and then measured the hH value of the said three products.

③ On April 22, 2013, the Busan Coast Guard requested the Korea Institute of Analysis and Technology (hereinafter “Technology”) designated as food sanitary inspection institution by the Minister of Food and Drug Safety to measure the pH value of the three products in which Defendant 1 sold to ○○ Distribution was melted by Defendant 1. On April 23, 2013, the Technical Research Institute measured the pH value of the said three products on April 23, 2013. The pH value was measured with the hH value on the piracy of the said three products.

④ On April 11, 2013, the Busan Coast Guard requested the National Research and Investigation Service (hereinafter “State”) to assess the PH value of the said three products sold in the city by Defendant 1. On August 7, 2013, the State and the number of countries measured the PH value of the said three products on August 7, 2013, which was approximately four months thereafter. The PH value was measured at the upper temperature after melting the said three products.

⑤ The police officers in charge of investigating Defendant 1’s violation of the Food Sanitation Act, technical researchers, and the number of countries and countries measured pH values were different.

(6) The value of seawater pH is known to be 7.8 to 8.3.

(3) First, as a result of the police officer’s measurement of Sora’s pH value by using the lus test site, it appears that the lusium itself accurately reflects the pH value of the lusium rather than the pH value of the water produced by melting the lusium products by measuring the lusium itself by using the lusium test site. In addition, from the perspective of the measurement timing, fishery lusium remaining in Sorasium remains in Sorasium may reduce the concentration of the lusium by causing chemical reaction with the lusium in the organization after the elapse of time after the lusium’s purchase, and thus, it is highly probable to view that the lusium measured the lusium value by considering the lusium value rather than the pH value measured after a certain degree of time after its purchase. Meanwhile, it is difficult to view that the lusium value was exactly reflected in the lusium value after measuring the lusium value after measuring the lusium value.

Therefore, the results of the pH value measurement using the reliable emuls test site and the H value measurement by the Technology Research Institute are similar. In light of the legal principles seen earlier, since the above pH value is higher than the pH of the sea water inhabited by the Defendant, the products sold by the Defendant containing emulsium dilution are in itself a strong chromosome, and it is reasonable to view that the degree of dynaium was extremely serious compared with the above emuls before the above processing. Thus, even if Defendant 1 1 stored emulsium high concentration dynaium dynaium dynaium dynaium dynaium dynaium dynaium dynaium dynaium dynaium dynaium dynaium dynaium dynaium dynaium dynaium dynaium dynaium dynaium dynaium dynaium d.

On the other hand, the result of the pH value of the country and water is conducted for about four months after the request for appraisal. In addition, in light of the timing and method of appraisal, it cannot be ruled out that there is a possibility that Defendant 1 did not accurately reflect the pH value of the processed Sora product, which is not the Sora itself, in light of the timing and method of appraisal, it does not interfere with recognizing this part of the facts charged.

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendants not guilty of this part of the charges on the ground that the Defendant cannot be readily concluded that the pH of the hH of the hydye of the instant Sodye is higher than that of seawater solely on the ground that the Defendant’s remaining hyeium in the instant Sodye cannot be readily concluded. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the neutralization or removal of hyeium in accordance with the Food Sanitation Act, or by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. The Prosecutor’s ground of appeal pointing this out is with merit.

2. As to the guilty part

The prosecutor also appealed the guilty portion of the judgment of the court below, but there is no indication of the grounds for appeal in the petition of appeal and no statement of the grounds for appeal can be found in the appellate brief.

3. Conclusion

As seen earlier, there exists a ground for reversal of the part of the judgment of the court below, and the crime that the court below found the Defendants guilty and the crime that found the Defendants not guilty are concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, the part of the judgment of the court below

Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Chang-suk (Presiding Justice)