beta
Text
Defendants are innocent.
Reasons
1. Summary of the facts charged
A. Defendant A and Defendant C are the representative director of the Songpa-gu Seoul F building, the 7th floor agricultural company B in the 7th floor, and Defendant C is the female student of Defendant A and the general director of the headquarters of the agricultural company B.
On February 3, 2015, at around 16:35, the Defendants conspired to report to the Minister for Food, Agriculture and Food, and at around 16:35, the Songpa-gu Seoul F building, and at the office of the agricultural company B in the 7th floor, G sold the so-called “H” seed for KRW 10 million.
B. Defendant B Co., Ltd. is a corporation established for the purpose of selling seeds and seedlings, agricultural products, and agricultural materials and communication.
The above-mentioned A, the representative director of the Defendant, and the employees of the Defendant, did not report to the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry with respect to the Defendant’s business at the same time and place as the above-mentioned A, and without reporting the Defendant’s business to the Minister for Food, Agriculture and Forestry Affairs, and the so-called “H” 100, the seeds of “I”, were sold in KRW 30,000,000.
2. The key issue of the instant case is whether Defendant C sold the instant seeds without “report” as prescribed by Article 38(1) of the Seed Industry Act, and the Defendants asserted that, prior to the sale of the instant seeds to Defendant C, the Defendants did not constitute a crime since the Defendant Company submitted a report to the National Seed Institute to Defendant C before selling the instant seeds to G, and sold them after the “report” as prescribed by the Seed Industry Act.
In light of the evidence duly admitted and examined by this Court, the Defendant Company submitted to G a report on selling the instant seeds to the National Seed Service on January 29, 2015, prior to selling the instant seeds. However, the National Seed Service on February 3, 2015, on the ground that “the name of the plant indicated in the name of the plant, including the name of the plant, and the name of the plant indicated in the nature of harvested material of the relevant plant variety” was rejected by the Defendant Company.