(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2015.12.10.선고 2014노1724 판결

The part of the judgment of the court below against Defendant A on the charge of not guilty and the violation of the Food Sanitation Act, and the part of the judgment of the court below against Defendant B on the violation of the Food Sanitation Act.

Defendant A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for eight months and by a fine of seven million won.

When Defendant B fails to pay the above fine, the above Defendant shall be confined in a workhouse for a period calculated by converting KRW 100,000 into one day.

However, with respect to Defendant A, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

To order the defendant B to pay an amount equivalent to the above fine.

The prosecutor's remaining appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A1) misunderstanding of facts

Defendant A according to the result of the inspection by the National Agricultural Product Quality Management Service (hereinafter referred to as the "Agricultural Product Quality Management Service").

The order to calculate the amount of indemnity is based on the judgment that the amount measured according to the close inspection is not caused by the cause attributable to ○○ distribution, and there was no intention of breach of trust against the defendant A.

2) Unreasonable sentencing

The sentence of the court below (four months of imprisonment, one year of suspended execution) is too heavy.

(b) Prosecutors;

1) As to the violation of the Food Sanitation Act, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on occupational breach of trust in view of the following: (a) as to the violation of the Food Sanitation Act: (b) the food includes both natural food and processed and cooked food; (c) the food materials are in itself food materials; and (d) the food materials contaminated are distributed in the market if they are not considered as food subject to the Food Sanitation Act; and (e) there is a gap in punishment even if they are distributed in the market; and (e) the food materials contaminated do not constitute food under the Food Sanitation Act.

In light of the above: (a) the Defendants first conducted an installment inspection, which is a more strict method of inspection; and (b) the amount of indemnity calculated according to the result was higher than the amount of indemnity calculated according to the test result; (c) the Defendants, without any particular reason, conducted a simplified test, and accordingly calculated the amount of indemnity and claimed a lower amount of indemnity than 30 million won; (d) the Defendants’ intent of occupational breach of trust can be sufficiently estimated, but there is no evidence as to the existence of the duty to conduct an installment inspection; and (e) the lower court acquitted the Defendants on the charge of the Defendants on the ground that there was no misconception of facts or misapprehension of legal principles.

2. Determination

A. As to Defendant A’s assertion of mistake of facts, the following facts can be acknowledged in full view of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the original instance court and the trial court. (A) At the time of arrival in the additional port where ○○○ distribution was imported, the content of dry-in drilling was 21.4% as a result of the simplified inspection conducted by the deaf-gu in Korea at the time of arrival in the additional port, and the quantity of the inspection conducted at the storage base of the Korea Food and Drug Corporation (hereinafter “Corporation”) was 29%, and the quantity of the inspection conducted at the time of entry into the warehouse was 29%, and was much higher than the result of the initial inspection. After that, Defendant A conducted a thorough inspection with the storage base A, and the quantity was 4% as a result, the content was found as 26.4%.

B) Article 13(3) of the Regulations on Government Stockpiling Business provides that "Article 13(3) of the Regulations shall be processed in accordance with the terms and conditions of the relevant contract in the event of a breach of contract with respect to the importation of agricultural products reserved by the Government, and Article 24(1) of the General Bid provides that if the Corporation is required to take over a non-quality standard product under the circumstances, such as the supply of and demand for such products, the amount of indemnity shall be collected by calculating the loss rate (value decline rate, market survey decrease rate) of the report issued by an official designating the Corporation on the basis of the quantity of foreign capital purchase and deducting the amount of indemnity from the amount of foreign capital purchase. In the case of a dry increase increase, the amount of indemnity for excess shall be calculated in accordance with the reduction method based on the amount of foreign capital purchase, and the amount of indemnity for excess shall be collected in accordance with the reduction method in the case of a significant difference between the purchase standard and the amount of indemnity paid by the contractor and the official designated by the Corporation.

C) A simplified test conducted by the deaf-gu in a port is to remove a certain number of container seals in proportion to the number of containers at the port, and to inspect part of the cargo loaded after entering the port. With respect to the inspection of water content, the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry adopts and implement auxiliary methods such as 130°C 105°C 105°C 106, which can obtain an equivalent measurement result, such as the red-line survey, and the red-line survey system. On the other hand, the prosecutor conducting the construction work on the container inside the container takes the total cargo from the container and takes the samples from the container and takes them out in the form of an inspection and takes them out in the form of an inspection, and takes them out in the way of using the 105°C 105’C dried or the off-line survey system, which is more accurate than the above simple test

On the other hand, the amount of indemnity has been determined according to the value calculated according to the precision test result.

D) A total of six hours normally takes place until the completion of loading and unloading in accordance with the volume until a dry and additional construction is transported as a storage base located in the city located in the city of e.g., Busan, which has completed customs procedures at the port of Busan.

E) B, the representative director of △△△ corporation, stated that the time of movement from the prosecution to the storage base from the loading port to the loading port is about 7-8 hours, and that there is no big change in the situation of agricultural products between them, and thus no separate examination procedure should be conducted.

F) Based on the notice trend examined from 2009 to 2012, the result of the inspection of the water content of the deaf source and the result of the inspection conducted in the storage base showed a difference of 1.56% on an average. Meanwhile, in the course of transportation, it was found that the transportation vehicle was at a higher level when the transportation vehicle transports the cargo without operating the cooling container power generator, and that it was suspected that the transportation of the coolant was done without operating the power generator of the Busan Ulsan District Headquarters of the Corporation around July 2010.

2) Considering the following circumstances revealed from the above facts, it can be sufficiently assessed that Defendant A committed a breach of trust in relation to the calculation of the amount of indemnity as stated in the judgment of the court below, and at the time Defendant A had dolusent intent to commit a breach of trust at the time. This part of the Defendant A’s assertion is without merit. The result of the examination conducted on the storage base rather than a simplified examination conducted by the Epis in relation to the method of calculating the amount of indemnity. Article 24(4) of the General Tender Notice provides that where the purchase standard is significantly different from the result of the quality examination conducted by the contractor upon the storage base of construction, it shall be treated as indemnity in accordance with the close examination conducted by the International Authorized Examination Agency designated by the contractor and the official designated by the Corporation, barring any special circumstance. Thus, Defendant A was not obliged to perform the duty of calculating the amount of indemnity in accordance with the above business regulations and practice.

B) Although it is difficult to readily conclude that the difference between the quantity and the quantity in the result of the simplified examination conducted by the deaf-inman and the result of the examination conducted in the storage base is not likely to have arisen from the fault of the shipping company, it is difficult to conclude that there is a high possibility that the above simple examination method would have arisen from the inspection limit, and thus, it is difficult to readily conclude that the cause was the negligence of the shipping company, and even though Defendant A determined that the amount was high due to the negligence of the shipping company, Defendant A should have done an investigation to establish grounds to justify it in order to calculate the amount of indemnity in a way contrary to the above general bidding intent or business practice. In other words, Defendant A should have tried to separately investigate the grounds to reverse the accuracy examination results in the storage base, such as the negligence of the shipping company, and to explain such circumstances to the upper part, and have been carried out with the order given by the upper part and upper part. Nevertheless, Defendant A, without any further examination, should have ordered Defendant A to determine the amount of indemnity by itself as the result of the transport company’s negligence.

B. The lower court’s determination as to the prosecutor’s assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine

Materials that produce food for both waves and dryings are not food, but food is classified as "raw materials for food on the code of food." The trend of scam and scam are the same as this. The scam and scams fall under "agricultural products subject to regulation in the Agricultural and Fishery Products Quality Control Act" and fall under Article 61 (Safety Inspection), Article 63 (Measures based on Safety Inspection), Article 79 (Inspection of Agricultural Products), Article 98 (Measures based on Inspection), Article 98-2 (Punishment Inspection), Article 120 (Penal Provisions) of the Food Sanitation Act, and thus it is difficult to view that there is a need to monitor and control the harmfulness of food on the basis of food under the Food Sanitation Act. Therefore, both waves and scams do not constitute food under the Food Sanitation Act.

B) Determination of the immediate deliberation

It is reasonable to view that the unborn spawn and dry spawn constitute food under the Food Sanitation Act. The reasons are as follows.

① The Food Sanitation Act provides that the purpose of contributing to the improvement of public health by preventing sanitary harm caused by food, promoting the qualitative improvement of food impact, and providing correct information on food (Article 1), and that food is defined as all food except for taking in as medicine (Article 2 Subparag. 1). In light of the legislative purpose of the Food Sanitation Act and the comprehensive definition of food except for taking as medicine, it is nothing more than an raw material of food, and there is no reason to exclude the food from the concept of food under the Food Sanitation Act. In particular, the method of taking food can vary depending on individuals or times, even if it is the raw material of food, it is not impossible to directly take food, and the food, such as the actual quantity, is consumed without being widely processed in society (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 87Do1575, Jul. 25, 198).

② The Minister of Food and Drug Safety shall, with the delegation of Article 7(1) of the Food Sanitation Act, publicly notify the name of "food or food additives standards for ingredients, manufacturing, processing, using, cooking, and preserving food or food additives". However, this is true considering that food or food additives under Article 7(1) of the Food Sanitation Act are extremely diverse, and the standards for the methods of manufacturing, processing, using, cooking, and preserving such food or food additives and the components thereof are technical and specialized, so it is inevitable for legislative technology to do so, and it is not necessarily required to take food as raw materials, but it is also possible to take food in any other way unless it lacks safety and soundness. In particular, due to the development of the food industry, the type of food or the methods of manufacturing and processing are different due to the development of the food industry, and it is impossible for the Minister of Food and Drug Safety to provide for the kinds of new food or the methods of manufacturing and processing new food prior to the introduction of food.

(3) If food falls under agriculture and fishery products at the time of the import of food, it is subject to the provisions of the Agricultural and Fishery Products Quality Control Act, and thus, a variety of inspections or measures are intended to secure safety, commerciality, etc. under the above Act. However, the above Act aims to contribute to increasing the income of farmers and fishermen and protecting consumers by securing the safety of agricultural and fishery products, improving the commercial quality, and inducing fair and transparent transactions through the appropriate quality control of agricultural and fishery products (Article 1), and the subject of the regulation differs from the agricultural products and fishery products under Article 3 subparagraph 6(a) and (b) of the Framework Act on Agriculture, Fisheries, Rural Community and Food Industry (Article 2(1)1, (a), (b) of the Food Sanitation Act and the subject of the inspection under the above Act, and thus, the Food Sanitation Act has different purpose and the subject of regulation from the Food Sanitation Act, and thus, it does not necessarily require the "prevention of sanitary harm caused by food and the improvement of food impacts" in order to improve the quality of food impacts.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which judged that a food does not fall under the category of food under the Food Sanitation Act is erroneous in interpreting the definition of food under the Food Sanitation Act, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment. The prosecutor's allegation in this part is with merit.

2) Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the court below as to occupational breach of trust, it may be acknowledged that there was a provision for the examination of dignity under the Act on the Control and Inspection of Public Works, which is a customary land to conduct an inspection of the dry Dosesesesesesesese, and that there was no such a practice in the guidelines for the examination of the dignity of imported agricultural products, or that there was no such a practice. However, as the defendants in charge of the import of foreign agricultural products in construction, the defendants in charge of the import of foreign agricultural products are more accurate methods than the Docode in the case of a dry Dosesesesesesesesesese, because there is a high possibility that the Docos, rather than the Docos, may be deteriorated within the outside, and in this case, the actual inspection was conducted and the above guidelines were binding upon the members of the Corporation, but it is difficult to accept the judgment of the court below to the effect that the defendants are not obliged to conduct an open inspection.

B) However, in full view of the evidence adopted and examined by the court below and the court below, it can be acknowledged that the amount of indemnity based on the value decline rate is calculated by preparing a standard sample from among the results of the efficiencies, the result of the efficiencies, or the result of the efficiencies test, or the result of the efficencies test, and presenting it to the market merchants and asking for the difference in the market price. According to this, it cannot be said that the adoption of the result of the efficencies test and the result of the efficencies test and the adoption of the result of the efficencies test does not affect the direct value decline rate. Therefore, it cannot be readily concluded that the Defendants did not adopt the result

C) The Prosecutor’s assertion on this part is without merit.

다. 피고인들의 주장에 대하여 1 ) 피고인들은 원심에서 이 사건에서 문제가 된 양파와 건고추가 식품위생법 제4조가 정한 위해식품 등에 해당하지 않는다고 주장하였다 . 2 ) 식품위생법 제4조는 " 썩거나 상하거나 설익어서 인체의 건강을 해칠 우려가 있는 것 ", " 식품의약품안전청장이 인체의 건강을 해칠 우려가 없다고 인정하는 것은 제외하고 유독 · 유해물질이 들어 있거나 묻어 있는 것 또는 그러할 염려가 있는 것 ", " 병 ( 病 ) 을 일으키는 미생물에 오염되었거나 그러할 염려가 있어 인체의 건강을 해칠 우려가 있는 것 ", " 불결하거나 다른 물질이 섞이거나 첨가된 것 또는 그 밖의 사유로 인체의 건강을 해칠 우려가 있는 것 " 등을 위해식품 등으로 규정하고 이를 판매하거나 판매할 목적으로 제조 · 가공 · 수입하는 행위를 금지하고 있다 . 3 ) 식품위생법은 위와 같은 식품이 사람의 생명, 신체, 건강에 위험을 초래하고 소비자들이 위험성을 미처 인식하지 못하고 이를 섭취함으로써 피해가 신속하고 광범위하게 발생할 위험이 있으며, 또한 일단 피해가 발생되면 사후구제란 별 효과가 없는 경우가 대부분이라는 점을 고려하여 인체의 건강을 해치거나 유해 · 유독물질이 묻어있을 우려가 있는 것까지도 그에 해당하는 것으로 규정한 것이라고 할 수 있다 . 4 ) 한편 대규모로 수입되는 식품 중 일부가 섞거나 곰팡이가 피는 등 하자가 발생한 경우 운송과정에서 곰팡이의 포자나 미생물이 보이지 않는 형태로 주변의 식품으로 옮겨 갈 수 있어 외견상으로는 멀쩡해 보여도 실상 그렇지 않은 경우가 많으므로 수입 물량 중 일부에 미미한 정도로 하자가 발생한 것이 아니라면 수입물량 중 일부에만 하자가 있었다고 하여 쉽게 나머지 물량이 인체의 건강을 해칠 우려가 없는 것이라고 단정지을 수 없다 .

5) According to the court below and the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, a large number of the defendants imported in the case of the two-waves of this case, such as air condition, mycoto, fung, and gymosis, and so on, they exceeded 5% of the standard rate of mixing of gymnasium because they do not good condition. After the defendants decided to gymnasium and partially import them, but they did not sell a large number of gymnasiums, and if the gymnas are mixed with large quantity of gymnasiums within one gymnasium, it may be quickly decomposed and deteriorated than normal gymnasium depending on the gymnasium. The fact that a large number of gymnasium in this case did not pass an inspection conducted by the Ministry of Food and Drug Safety on the grounds that the gymnasium and 120 tons of the gymnasium were high, but it did not cause a large gni in this case.

6) According to the above, it is reasonable to view that the total quantity of the foods imported by the Defendants constitutes foods that are likely to harm human health or to injure harmful and toxic substances under Article 4 of the Food Sanitation Act. The Defendants’ assertion is without merit.

D. As to Defendant B’s assertion, Defendant B merely directed and supervised Defendant A in general, and the specific tasks were deemed to have been performed by the employees, including Defendant A, and the employees were aware that the employees were selected and taken over only the good during the process of spawn or spawn. Accordingly, Defendant B asserted that Defendant A and the instant food sanitation act were not committed.

2) Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court and the first instance court’s duly admitted and investigated evidence, Defendant B may be sufficiently assessed to have impliedly conspired to commit the Defendant A’s criminal act. Defendant B’s assertion is without merit. Defendant B is the Corporation****** the Corporation’s immediate superior to Defendant A, and the Corporation***** the final approval authority of the team ****.

나 ) 피고인 B은 丁으로부터 * * 식품이 검품신청한 건고추 물량 248톤 중 48톤만 합격이라는 사실을 보고받고 戊로부터는 비가 많이 와서 건고추의 수분함량이 모두 초과되었다는 보고를 받고도 피고인 A과 협의한 다음 불합격된 물량 중에서 80톤을 선적하라고 지시하였다 .

C) On March 4, 2011, Defendant B, after receiving a report that the status of 50 tons of the two-lanes was not generally good due to cooling, myi, and grigerum, decided that he could not take over as a result of the 500 tons of the two-lanes, and that he would select and supply both waves in △△, and that the decision to refuse to take over was reversed. Since then, Defendant B, upon receiving a report that the status of 50 tons of the two-lanes imported as a result of the simplified examination, determined the income as the approving authority.

D) Defendant A did not report all of the facts to Defendant B at the investigative agency and the lower court, but did not follow the opinion of the approving authority. In the case of the two-party prior acceptance, Defendant A reported to Defendant B on the two-party prior acceptance, and reported to Defendant B on the two-party prior acceptance status compared to the first portion, and stated that Defendant B was frequently reported, such as the progress of the examination of Y and the progress of the examination.

E. Sub-decision

Therefore, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles and rendered a not-guilty verdict on the violation of the Food Sanitation Act among the facts charged in this case. The crime of occupational breach of trust, which the court below found Defendant A guilty, shall be sentenced to a single punishment in relation to the crime of violation of the Food Sanitation Act and concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act. Therefore, without determining the grounds for appeal of unfair sentencing, the part of the judgment below against Defendant A’s guilty and the

3. Conclusion

Therefore, since the prosecutor's appeal against the defendants is partly reasonable, the guilty part of the judgment of the court below against the defendant A and the guilty part of the crime of violating the Food Sanitation Act pursuant to Article 364 (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the judgment of the court below against the defendant B are reversed, and the remaining appeal by the prosecutor is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, since it is without merit.

Criminal facts

1. Defendant A

Defendant A is the Deputy Director of the Korea Agriculture and Fisheries Corporation and the head of the team from March 22, 2010 to July 16, 2012, who has been in charge of importing and selling agricultural products through state trade, such as straw, math, spath, spath, spath, spath, and bean, as a special-purpose crop.

The Korea Agriculture and Food Trade Corporation, which is entrusted with the Agricultural Product Price Stabilization Fund established to facilitate the supply and demand and price stability of agricultural products and to improve the distribution structure, has imported, stored, and sold and disposed of major agricultural products under the WTO Agreement through the above fund, and has been entrusted with the Agricultural Product Price Stabilization Fund.

On March 19, 2010, the Korea Agriculture and Food Trade Corporation entered into a negotiated contract to ○○ Distribution and to import 104 tons a domestic contracting agent of the export company, China, the domestic contracting agent of the export company, and Defendant A is an employee of the above corporation, and Defendant A has a duty to thoroughly claim indemnity.

Nevertheless, at the above construction office located in Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government around December 24, 2010, Defendant A confirmed the progress of the above ○○ distribution and ordered Defendant A to calculate the amount of indemnity based on 21.4%, which is the result of the inspection conducted by C, who is an employee in charge, and is not in accordance with the close inspection standards, and is not in accordance with C, who is the result of the inspection by the Agricultural Products Quality Control Service.

As a result, Defendant A had ○○ Distribution obtain property benefits equivalent to USD 26,782 ($ 30,839,668), which is the difference in the amount of excess indemnity, in violation of his duties, and caused the State to incur property damages equivalent to the amount of the above amount.

2. Defendants

From August 2010 to December 31, 201, Defendant B, as the Director of the Korea Agriculture and Food Trade Corporation from August 201 to December 31, 201, is a person who has overall control over the management of state trading and agricultural product price stabilization fund to promote the price stability of agricultural products by directly importing and selling agricultural products at a low rate within the scope of the market access volume (market access volume).

(a)in relation to the importation of 1,00 tons of domestic high frequency which is decomposed or deteriorated;

No person shall sell, or collect, manufacture, import, process, use, cook, cook, subdivide, transport or display for sale foods, foods containing or containing poisonous or harmful substances or foods likely to do so, foods mixed with or added to such foods, etc., which are likely to cause harm to the health of the human body, or foods, etc. containing or adhered to such foods, or foods mixed with other substances.

Nevertheless, around February 15, 201, the Defendants entered into an import contract with 1,00 tons in China with the Korea Food and Drug Corporation as its domestic contracting agent on February 15, 201, and entered into a close inspection with 1,00 tons of domestic raw water, which is 43% of the imported quantity, were under corruption, such as chilling damages and spreading fung rapidly in the surrounding areas. Some of the fungs were determined to refuse to take over the fungs, around March 4, 201, and to return it to 30 tons of agricultural products to 10 tons of agricultural products and to 30 tons of agricultural products, and then, to 20 tons of agricultural products and to 10 tons of agricultural products, and then to 30 tons of agricultural products and to 20 tons of new products and to 30 tons of new products so that they will be removed from 10,000 tons of agricultural products and to 30,000 tons of new products and to 13,000.

As a result, the Defendants conspired to commit corruption and imported, keep and sell an infung fung fung, which is a foreign substance.

(b) Fungi, soil, dust, etc. in China;

No one shall sell, or gather, manufacture, import, process, use, cook, subdivide, subdivide, transport, or display for sale, foods containing or containing poisonous or harmful substances, or foods which are likely to cause harm to the health of the human body because they are strue, strue or snow, or foods which are mixed with other substances, or foods which are mixed with or added to them, or gather, manufacture, import, process, use, cook, store, subdivide, transport, or display for sale. 1) * on September 26, 2011, the Defendants released my fung, soil, etc. which are not in conformity with the above construction work standards through the port of Busan ** on food dried 46 tons (one shipment volume) from November 5, 2011 to December 13, 2011 * from the above Seoul 1200 tons of foods * from the above Seoul 100-1200 tons of foods * from the Seoul 120-13, 2011 *

B) On October 2, 201, the Defendants imported Doi, soil, dust, etc., which do not meet the standards of the above construction work via the port of Busan around October 2, 201,* Food Dried 128 tons (the secondary shipment volume) and sold it to 35 companies, such as the Seoul Metropolitan Government, located in Yongsan-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, from November 2, 201 to November 26, 2011.

As a result, the Defendants conspired to commit corruption, and imported and sold fungs with fungs, which are foreign substances, and soil dust. 2) The Korea Agriculture and Food Trade Corporation imported and stored frans, which were exported from December 5, 201 to December 28, 201, entered into a contract for importing 836 tons of frans and frans in the office in Seocho-gu, Seoul, from December 5, 201 to December 28, 201, at the office of the Korea Agriculture and Food Trade Corporation and Trade Corporation in Seocho-gu, Seoul, with domestic contract agents ** as domestic contract agents 10 enterprises, such as Macheon-Woos in China.

From December 2, 201 to January 201, 2012, the Defendants imported 2,836 tons in fung, soil, dust, etc., which do not meet the standards of the above construction through the Busan port, and entered 2,836 tons in 5 bases, such as the transfer storage base of the above construction from around that time to February 2012.

Accordingly, the Defendants conspired to commit corruption and contain mycocoin, which is a foreign substance, and the soil dust, imported and stored for the purpose of sale.

Summary of Evidence

Application of Statutes

1. Article 356, Article 355 (2) of the Criminal Act (the occupational breach of trust), Article 94 subparagraph 1, Article 4 of the Food Sanitation Act (the violation of the Food Sanitation Act), and Article 94 subparagraph 1, Article 4 of the Food Sanitation Act (the violation of the Food Sanitation Act) (the primary crime; the violation of the Food Sanitation Act); the fact that the primary crime was committed; the fact that the corporation has faithfully performed its duties; the fact that the crime in this case did not have actual gains; the fact that the crime in this case occurred in the course of following the government's policy to ensure the stability of supply and demand of agricultural products; and the decision of a fine is made by taking a favorable account of the circumstances that may be considered in the course of the crime);

1. Aggravation of concurrent crimes;

Defendants: Articles 37 and 38(1)2 of the Criminal Act

1. Invitation of a workhouse;

Defendant B: Articles 70 and 69(2) of the Criminal Act

1. Suspension of execution;

Defendant A: Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (the fact that there is no criminal history of the same kind of crime and no punishment heavier than the fine, the fact that Defendant A was fully recovered after the amount of indemnity claimed by Defendant A, there is no benefit that Defendant A actually acquired due to the instant crime, the fact that Defendant A actually performed the work of the Corporation in good faith, and the occurrence of the process in accordance with the government’s policy to ensure the stability of supply and demand of agricultural products, and that there are extenuating circumstances in the course of the crime).

1. Order of provisional payment;

Defendant B: Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act