All appeals by the Defendants and the Prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendants 1) 1 misunderstanding the facts as follows: (a) Defendant A’s labeling “in the country of origin” on the website of Defendant B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Company”) is not an indication of origin but an indication that the product was produced in the Republic of Korea; (b) the name of the product using domestic rice is “Korean rice” in the name of the product using domestic rice; and (c) the price difference between the product using domestic rice and the product using imported rice exists; and (d) it does not constitute an indication that may cause confusion as to the country of origin.

(2) The defendant company website shall have been the head of quality control team.

Inasmuch as I led, the head of the group, and Defendant A did not know that there was any error of origin as described in the facts charged on the Defendant’s website, there was no perception that it might cause confusion with the country of origin labeling.

2) The sentence of the lower court that is unfair in sentencing (a fine of KRW 3 million for each of the Defendants) is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence is too uneased and unreasonable.

2. Determination

가. 피고인들의 사실 오인 주장에 대한 판단 1) 원산지 혼동 우려의 표시가 아니라는 주장에 대한 판단 농수산물의 원산지 표시에 관한 법률 제 6조 제 1 항 제 1호에서 규정하고 있는 ‘ 원산지를 혼동하게 할 우려가 있는 표시를 하는 행위’ 라 함은 거래 상대방이 실제로 원산 지를 오인할 것을 요하는 것이 아니라 일반적인 거래자 즉 평균인의 주의력을 기준으로 거래관념 상 원산지를 다르게 인식할 위험성이 있는 표시를 하는 것을 뜻하는 것인데( 대법원 2004. 7. 22. 선고 2004도 2835 판결 참조), 원심이 적법하게 채택하여 조사한 증거들에 의하면, 피고인 회사의 홈페이지에는 수입산 가공용쌀ㆍ밀을 원료로 하여 생산한 떡볶이, 떡국, 냉면, 막국수, 쫄면, 밀면...