logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원 2017.08.18 2017노818
축산물위생관리법위반
Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, the period of one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, the Defendant did not indicate as if he were to deliver the end without using the end at all the end of Han-ri, Han-ri, Han-ri, Han-ri, Han-ri, and Han-ri without using the end, and as such, the Defendant supplied the delivery slip and marking with the delivery slip at the request of the school where the delivery was received, it cannot be deemed as false marking.

In addition, even if only the food name is indicated in the food name at the time of delivery, a mixed land can be supplied with a mixed land if it is indicated in the detailed description as a "mix", and accordingly, it cannot be said that it is false because it is delivered by attaching the delivery note and the label.

However, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Before deciding on the grounds for appeal by the Defendant’s ex officio, the Prosecutor applied for changes in the indictment of this case to the effect that the facts charged are changed as stated in the following facts charged, and the subject of the judgment by this court was changed. Thus, the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained any more.

However, the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts is still subject to a trial by this court within the scope of the modified facts charged despite the above reasons for reversal of authority, and this is examined below.

B. The following circumstances acknowledged based on the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court and the trial court: (i) the Defendant’s employees present at the prosecutor’s investigation that “I am a mixed delivery of one-way and one-way one-way one-way one-way one-way one-way one-way one-way one-way one-way one-way one-way one-way one-way one-way one-way one-way one-way one-way one-way one-way one-way one-way one-way one-way one-way other

arrow