Southyang Business Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Law Firm Square, Attorneys Nam-Dun et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Daejeon District Court Order 2001 and 31 dated February 2, 2002

The appeal of this case is dismissed.

1. Basic facts

The record reveals the following reasons until the decision of the fine for negligence in this case is made.

가. 항고인은 2001. 5.경부터 농산물원산지표시요령(1999. 12. 9. 농림부고시 제1999-82호, 이하 같다)상 원산지표시 대상품목으로 규정하고 있는 영 · 유아용 곡류조제식인 “스텝 엄선 프리미엄(1단계~3단계)”이라는 가공제품(이하 ‘이 사건 제품’이라 한다)을 생산하면서 그 원산지에 관하여 ‘원료명 및 함량’ 표시란에 ‘혼합곡분 15.17%[쌀(국산) 55%], 유기농 현미 9.8%(국산 100%), 결정과당, 미분, 활곡, 농축유청단백’이라고 표기하여 왔다.

나. 이 사건 제품에는 그 원료로서 쌀이 39.63%(국산 45.88%, 수입산 54.2%), 농축유청 단백이 7.5%(수입산), 옥수수가 6.83%(수입산) 등이 들어갔고, 그 중 쌀은 제조공정에 투입될 때의 가공된 정도 및 상태에 따라 혼합곡분(국산 쌀 55%, 수입산 옥수수 45%를 혼합하여 뻥튀기한 것), 미분(수입산 쌀을 단순 분쇄한 것), 활곡(수입산 쌀에 일정한 열과 압력을 가하여 뻥튀기한 것), 볶음쌀(수입산 쌀을 물로 씻어 스팀으로 찌어 건조시킨 후 일정한 온도와 시간으로 볶고 나서 분쇄한 것), 유기농 현미(국산 현미를 위미분과 같이 단순 분쇄한 것) 등으로 구성되어 있는데 이러한 가공품이 이 사건 제품에서 차지하는 비율은 혼합곡분 15.17%, 미분 9.79%, 활곡 8.0%, 볶음쌀 3.7%, 유기농 현미 9.8%이다.

C. On July 2, 2001, the Director of the Chungcheong District National Agricultural Products Quality Management Service imposed an administrative fine of KRW 5,00,000 on the appellant by applying Articles 38(1)3 and 15(3) of the former Agricultural and Fishery Products Quality Control Act (amended by Act No. 6399, Jan. 29, 2001; hereinafter the same) on the origin of the instant product, on the grounds that the same indication as the indication in paragraph (a) violates the relevant laws and regulations.

D. On August 1, 2001, the appellant filed an objection in accordance with the Non-Contentious Case Litigation Procedure Act. On February 2, 2002, the lower court rendered a decision that the appellant shall be punished by an administrative fine of KRW 5,00,00,00 by applying Article 38(1)3 and Article 15(3) of the former Quality Control of Agricultural and Fishery Products Act, Article 24(2)3 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Quality Control of Agricultural and Fishery Products Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 17351, Sep. 1, 2001; hereinafter the same), Article 248(1) and (2) of the Non-Contentious Case Litigation Procedure Act.

2. Relevant provisions;

(a) The former Quality Control of Agricultural and Fishery Products Act;

Article 15 (Indication of Place of Origin) (1) The Minister of Agriculture and Forestry or the Minister of Maritime Affairs and Fisheries shall have the persons who sell or process agricultural and fishery products and processed agricultural and fishery products mark the place of origin, where it is prescribed by Presidential Decree

(2) A person who sells or processes agricultural and fishery products or processed agricultural and fishery products which have to indicate the country of origin pursuant to paragraph (1) shall indicate the country of origin on the raw materials of the relevant agricultural and fishery products and processed products

(3) Matters necessary for items subject to indication of origin, methods of indication, criteria for determining origin, etc. under the provisions of paragraph (1) shall be prescribed by Presidential Decree.

B. Enforcement Decree of the former Agricultural and Fishery Product Quality Control Act

The items subject to the indication of origin under the provisions of Article 15 (3) of the Act shall be the agricultural and fishery products and processed products using such products as the agricultural and fishery products and the processed products thereof, which are determined and publicly notified by the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry or the Minister of Oceans and Fisheries, from among the items deemed necessary for the establishment of distribution order and the proper choice

Article 24 (Methods, etc. of Origin Labeling) (1) The method of indicating the place of origin under the provisions of Article 15 (3) of the Act shall be as follows:

3. In the case of domestic processed products (including the imported processed products that are reprocessed in Korea), the place of origin of raw materials shall be marked by respective ingredients of the processed products in order of their content.

3. The appellant's assertion; and

A. The mixture of rice used in the product of this case, but all roasting rice, roasting rice, and organic roasting rice as its raw material, but the degree of processing prior to input of the product of this case or the state of processing is different, and thus, it should be viewed as separate raw material.

B. As seen earlier, the highest mixing ratio is a mixed rice, organic rice, and all of the processed products are the mixed rice products, and the origin of the mixed rice and organic agricultural products should be marked with the origin of the raw material agricultural products of the organic agricultural products.

C. Therefore, the order of the court below should be revoked since the method of indicating the origin of the raw materials for the instant product by the appellant is lawful.

4. Determination

In full view of the relevant provisions, Articles 1 and 15 of the former Agricultural and Fishery Products Quality Control Act, Article 23 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Agricultural and Fishery Products Quality Control Act, etc., the legislative intent of stipulating a specific item as an object of labeling of the country of origin is to enable consumers to make correct choice by providing accurate information on the establishment of distribution order for agricultural and fishery products and processed products made of such product and the consumer by providing accurate information on the country of origin. Therefore, in light of the legislative intent of the above, if processed products used as raw materials of "processed products" under Article 24(1)3 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Agricultural and Fishery Products Quality Control Act (hereinafter "processed products used as raw materials" and "raw materials of processed products" are used, "raw materials" subject to labeling of the country of origin shall be "raw materials" if agricultural and fishery products used as raw materials are identified as materials different from the original raw materials of agricultural and fishery products after the chemical processing stage, etc., but if the agricultural and fishery products do not have any essential difference in the original raw materials itself.

그런데, 앞서 인정한 사실에 의하면 가공품인 이 사건 제품에 사용된 원료가공품 중 배합비율이 가장 높은 것은 혼합곡분, 유기농 현미이지만 이들은 주로 쌀을 원료농수산물로 한 것으로서 쌀을 뻥튀기하거나 분쇄한 것에 불과하여 원료농수산물인 쌀과 본질적인 차이가 있다고 보기 어렵다.

Therefore, although the appellant is required to indicate the origin of rice, etc. as the raw material in the production of the product of this case, the appellant stated the processed raw material product as the origin of the raw material, as seen earlier, and thus violated the method of indicating the origin in accordance with the relevant laws and regulations. Therefore, the judgment of the court below that imposed an administrative fine on the appellant is legitimate.

5. Conclusion

Therefore, the order of the court below is justified, and the appeal of this case by the appellant is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Kim Yong-sung (Presiding Judge) and Lee Dong-young