In a case where a person sells the trademark of "domestic £« import acid" by putting his/her chill in a chill of Korean origin, such as a domestic chill, and a chill of American mountain, in a large discount store that obtained permission for business as a resting restaurant, the case holding that, in a case where he/she sells the trademark of "domestic cream + import acid" by putting his/her chill in the cubbbal and the strong chill in the cubbalum of Korean origin, the cubbalum and the strong chill sold within the above cubner constitutes items subject to origin labeling prescribed by the Agricultural Products Quality Control Act, and the cubic cubbalum's cubbal, which is used for at least 50% of the raw materials of agricultural products as domestic processed products in Korea, even though all of them

In a case where a person sells the trademark "domestic + imported acid" by putting his/her chill in a chill of Korean origin, such as the Korean chickens and the US chickens at a large discount store that obtained permission for business as a resting restaurant, the case held that, in light of the Defendant's business form and sales method, the Defendant's chilling and the chilling's chilling sold within the above crocbbbr constitutes an item subject to indication of origin on the ground that it cannot be deemed that the Defendant's products were sold by cooking merely without distribution purposes in light of the Defendant's business form and sales method, and that the domestic processed agricultural products used for at least 50% of the relevant raw materials are indicated as "in Korea," and that the chilling and the chilling's crocb "in Korea + imported acid" is indicated as "U.S.," but all, it constitutes a case where the country's origin is falsely indicated or is likely to be confused with the country of origin.

Articles 15(1) and (3) and 17 subparag. 1 of the Agricultural Products Quality Control Act; Article 34-2 of the former Agricultural Products Quality Control Act (amended by Act No. 7675 of Aug. 4, 2005); Articles 23 and 24(1)3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Agricultural Products Quality Control Act; Article 24(1)1 of the Enforcement Rule of the Agricultural Products Quality Control Act

Defendant

Defendant

The grandchildren shall:

Attorney Ha Tae-tae

Daegu District Court Decision 2004Gohap3678 Decided January 31, 2005

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 700,000.

When the defendant fails to pay the above fine, the defendant shall be confined in a workhouse for a period calculated by converting 50,000 won into one day.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal by the defendant;

The Defendant reported his business as resting restaurants, and sold the chickens, chickens, chickens, and so this was not for distribution purposes, and thus does not have an obligation to indicate the country of origin in accordance with the law, and even though it does not constitute items subject to origin indication, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of having a duty to indicate the country of origin mark on the premise that the Defendant was obliged to indicate the country of origin in the chickens, chickens, and chickens, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination on the grounds for appeal

(a) Basic facts;

According to records, the following facts are recognized.

(1) The Defendant, while operating a food store in large feet, was supplied with the birth chickens, such as the catum in Korea and the catum in the U.S., by the U.S. Food Council, etc., and prepared the following in mind within the food store of the Defendant.

(2) The Defendant: (a) put a cat of a cat of cat of a cat of a cat of a cat of a cat of a cat of a cat of a cat of a cat of a cat of a cat of a cat of a cat of a cat of a cat of a cat of a cat of a cat of a cat of a cat of a cat of a c

(3) Within the Defendant’s food store, there was no place where food that can be immediately consumed was not provided. The consumers who purchased the chickens and the chickens that were displayed at the Defendant’s food store as above were able to drink at a place separately prepared within marina, after completing calculation in the comprehensive calculation unit of marina.

(b)the agricultural products subject to origin labeling and the method of origin labeling;

Article 15(3) of the Agricultural Products Quality Control Act and Article 23 of the Enforcement Decree thereof impose an obligation to indicate the country of origin on the items determined and publicly notified by the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry among the items deemed necessary for the establishment of distribution order of agricultural products and processed agricultural products and for the proper choice of consumers. Accordingly, Article 2 and attached Table of the Guidelines for Origin Labeling (Public Notice No. 2000-74 of November 20, 200) of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry classify the items subject to labeling into “import agricultural products, domestically produced agricultural products, and processed agricultural products” and classify the items of processed agricultural products into “those, ice cream products, processed milk products, meat products, transit, bottled products, and other food products.”

According to the above guidelines for labeling the origin of agricultural products, products manufactured with raw chills as their main raw materials constitute “products - meat products” among “3. processed products” in the above attached Table (the fryed food claimed by the Defendant falls under “other food products” according to the food code under Article 12 of the Food Sanitation Act, and “other food products” defined as supplementary provisions for items not contained in other items. Thus, cooking products constitute “meat products” and do not correspond to “other food products.”

In addition, Article 24 (1) 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Agricultural Products Quality Control Act and Article 24 (1) 1 of the Enforcement Rule provide that in the case of domestic processed agricultural products (including imported processed agricultural products that have been processed in Korea), the place of origin of raw materials shall be indicated in order of the content of the raw materials used, and in the case of raw materials with at least 50% of the used materials, if there is no raw materials with a mixture ratio of at least 50%, such raw materials shall be indicated, and in the order of mixing ratio, two raw materials shall be placed.

(c) Markets:

If so, the Defendant’s crypary and so on, the crypian cryp, which was sold within the above food store, constitutes meat products (raw crypian products) subject to origin labeling. According to the country of origin of the cryp that was used for at least 50% of the raw materials, the crypary and crypary were indicated as “in Korea,” and the crypian cryp, but all of the cryp were indicated as “domestic products + imported products,” so it is recognized that the Defendant made a false indication of origin or made

In addition, according to the business form and sales method of the Defendant in the above basic facts, it cannot be deemed that the instant chickens and chickens were sold not for distribution purposes but merely for cooking, and in light of the legislative purport of the provision on the duty to indicate origin, etc. of the Act and subordinate statutes stipulating the duty to indicate origin, insofar as agricultural products and processed agricultural products falling under items subject to origin labeling for distribution purposes are sold at the place of business that reported the business as a resting restaurant, the Defendant’s assertion on this issue is without merit.

3. Ex officio determination

In the trial, the prosecutor changed "Article 17 subparagraph 3 of the Agricultural Products Quality Control Act" from among the applicable provisions of Acts to "Article 17 subparagraph 1 of the Agricultural Products Quality Control Act", and applied for changes to "five Dup" from among the facts charged, "32g 1 g 332 g 3,900 won", "332 g 332 g 3,900 won," "8 g g 3,900 won," and "8 g g g 3,000 won, such as demotion," respectively, and the court below was unable to maintain as it is by permitting this.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364(2) and (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and it is again decided as follows after pleading.

The Defendant is a person operating a food shop in the name of “(trade name omitted)” located (name omitted) in Seo-gu (Segu Address omitted). The Defendant is prohibited from falsely indicating the place of origin or genetically modified agricultural products or making any indication likely to cause confusion as to the place of origin or genetically modified agricultural products;

On January 17, 2004, the Council of Food and Agriculture found the above "(trade name omitted)" between January 17, 2004 and from January 14:00 to September 14:00 of the same month by attaching a trademark "Domestic ＋ + Imported 286 g, which was prepared in advance," and selling 2,60 g, 332 g, 3,90 g, c, c, c, c, c, 32 g, c, c, c, c, c, 32 g, c, c, c, c, c, c, c, c, c, c, c, c, c, and 8 m, c, c, and so on to many unspecified persons.

1. Statement by each of the defendants in court;

1. The witness Nonindicted Party 1’s statement at the trial court

1. A certificate;

1. A written statement of Nonindicted 2

1. The statement of Nonindicted Party 1

1. Relevant legal provisions and the choice of punishment concerning criminal facts: The provision of Article 34-2 and subparagraph 1 of Article 17 of the Agricultural Products Quality Control Act (amended by Act No. 7675 of Aug. 4, 2005) and the selection of fines;

2. Attraction of a workhouse: Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act.

The purport of the law that prescribes the obligation to indicate the origin of agricultural products, social interest and interest therein, the form of the instant crime, and the fact that the Defendant appears to have enjoyed certain benefits from the instant crime, and other punishment like the order, considering the age, character, conduct and environment of the Defendant and all the sentencing conditions shown in the records and arguments of the instant case, shall be determined.

Judges Kim Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)