Whether the act of using packaging materials indicating the name of a production area of domestic famous special products is included in the indication column of origin in the "an act of labeling that may cause confusion as to the place of origin" under Article 6 (1) 1 of the former Act on Origin Labeling of Agricultural and Fishery Products (affirmative)

In full view of the contents of Articles 14, 6(1)1, and (3) of the former Act on Origin Labeling of Agricultural and Fishery Products (amended by Act No. 11690, Mar. 23, 2013; hereinafter “Act”), and Article 4 [Attachment Table 5] of the former Enforcement Rule of the Act on Origin Labeling of Agricultural and Fishery Products (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry for Food, Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries No. 333, Jan. 8, 2013; hereinafter “Enforcement Rule”), the act of using packaging materials with the name of a domestic well-known production area after indicating the country of origin constitutes an act that may cause confusion as to the country of origin.

Article 6(1)1, (3), and Article 14 of the former Act on Origin Labeling of Agricultural and Fishery Products (Amended by Act No. 11690, Mar. 23, 2013); Article 4 [Attachment Table 5] of the former Enforcement Rule of the Act on Origin Labeling of Agricultural and Fishery Products (Amended by Ordinance of the Ministry for Food, Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries No. 333, Jan. 8, 2013);

Defendant

Prosecutor

Attorney White-sung

Daegu District Court Decision 2013No2641 Decided November 7, 2013

The appeal is dismissed.

1. As to the guilty part of the judgment below

The prosecutor appealed against the guilty portion of the judgment of the court below, but did not submit any grounds for objection.

2. As to the acquittal portion of the lower judgment

The grounds of appeal are examined.

A. Under Articles 14 and 6(1)1 of the former Act on Origin Labeling of Agricultural and Fishery Products (amended by Act No. 11690, Mar. 23, 2013; hereinafter “Act”), an act of falsely labeling the country of origin or labeling that may cause confusion as to the country of origin is punished. Furthermore, under Article 6(3) of the Act, matters necessary for labeling that may cause confusion as to the country of origin in violation of Article 6(1) are prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry for Food, Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries.

Accordingly, Article 4 [Attachment 5] of the Enforcement Rule of the Act on Origin Labeling of Agricultural and Fishery Products (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry for Food, Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries No. 333, Jan. 8, 2013, and enforced June 28, 2013) provides that "a mark that may cause confusion with the country of origin is marked with the country of origin in the indication of the country of origin, but it refers to a mark that misleads the country of origin by attaching a similar mark in packing materials, sign signs, publicity materials, etc., but it refers to a mark that causes confusion with the country of origin by misunderstanding the country of origin by using a similar mark in other places such as packing materials, sign signs, publicity materials, etc." provides that "domestic products" shall be marked with a large letter in the indication of the country of origin

In full view of the contents of the relevant provisions, the act of using packaging materials with the name of the production area of domestic well-known special products is distinguishable from the “an act of falsely indicating the origin” as provided in Article 6(1)1 of the Act and “an act of falsely indicating the origin,” and the act of using packaging materials with the name of the production area of the domestic well-known special products after the indication of the country of origin constitutes an act of making a mark that may cause confusion as to the origin.

B. The gist of this part of the facts charged is that the Defendant, from October 201 to October 22, 2012, included the false origin indication in the packaging of the Gancheon Agricultural Cooperatives (hereinafter “Yancheoncheon Agricultural Cooperatives”) that forged the trademark of 80,000 km, glutinous rice, etc. (hereinafter “instant agricultural products”), rather than the “Gancheon Agricultural Cooperatives,” purchased from the members of the Gancheon-dong Council, etc. in the border-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong (hereinafter “instant agricultural products”), indicated that the country of origin was “Yancheoncheoncheon-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-si,” and distributed it to the school located in the school located in 709 location, 38 location, etc. of the country of origin, and thus, it is difficult to view this part of the facts charged on the ground that the instant agricultural products are domestically produced.

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the aforementioned legal doctrine and the evidence duly admitted in the lower court, the lower court’s aforementioned determination is justifiable and acceptable. In so doing, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding “False Indication of Origin” or by exceeding

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Park Poe-dae (Presiding Justice)