logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 울산지방법원 2014.11.07 2014고정475
식품위생법위반
Text

The defendant is innocent. The summary of this judgment shall be notified publicly.

Reasons

1. The summary of the facts charged is that the defendant runs a active fish distribution business using the name of "C" as the location of the place of business.

Any person who intends to run food transportation business (business of sanitary transportation of foods that can be decomposed or deteriorated, such as plastic beverages, fish, birds, and products processed therefrom) shall report to the head of the competent Si/Gun/Gu, etc. after meeting certain standards for facilities, such as transportation facilities, tea facilities, teas, and offices.

Nevertheless, the Defendant, from February 1, 2010 to June 25, 2013, owned one motor vehicle for live fish transport from "G" located in the northwest-gu, Ulsan Metropolitan City, and leased two water capacity pipes (one/3m x 5m) from "G" in the north north-gu, Ulsan Metropolitan City, and stored fishery products, such as white joints, holes, teas, and Ris, and distributed them for wholesale, without satisfying the facility standards, such as transporting 20 times in the place of racing, city, port, etc., and selling 260,000 won in the amount of KRW 20,000 per year, and did not file a report on food transportation business with the competent racing and Mayor.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the defendant and his defense counsel's assertion 1) transported "vit language". The "vit language" is different from other food, and it is not likely to cause corruption and deterioration. Thus, it does not fall under "food" under the Food Sanitation Act or "food that is likely to be decomposed or changed, such as fish and birds," which is subject to reporting food transportation business. 2) Even if not, the defendant sold active language, and carried the active fish at the frequency of the buyer's order at the request of the buyer (the operator of the restaurant, etc.) without any separate consideration for transportation. Thus, it is merely that the defendant transported the active fish, etc., which was ordered without any separate consideration for transportation at the request of the buyer. Thus, food transportation business is excluded from reporting food transportation business under the proviso of Article 21 (4) of the Enforcement Decree of the Food Sanitation Act.

arrow