logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 의정부지방법원 2015.06.09 2014노2781
농수산물의원산지표시에관한법률위반등
Text

1. The judgment below is reversed.

2. Defendant A shall be punished by imprisonment for a year and a fine of KRW 4,000,00.

Defendant.

Reasons

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (in case of Defendant A: imprisonment of one year and two months, three years of suspended sentence, fine of five million won, community service, 160 hours, Defendant B: fine of ten million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the Defendants ex officio, the Prosecutor applied for changes in the indictment to “15,722kg” of the Defendant’s sales volume “18,238.9kg” of the attached list of crimes in the instant indictment, and “213,063,925 won” of the sales amount “183,661,90 won” among the charges in the instant case. Since this court permitted this and changed the subject of the judgment, the judgment of the court below that sentenced the Defendant to the above part of the charges and the remainder as concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act was no longer maintained.

3. Accordingly, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the defendants' assertion of unfair sentencing, on the grounds of ex officio reversal, and the judgment below is again decided as follows.

Criminal facts

Defendant

A is a person who establishes and operates a “stock company B” in Yongyang-gu, Soyang-gu, Soyang-gu, Seoul, around November 9, 201 to cultivate and sell mushrooms.

1. Defendant A

A. From August 7, 2013 to August 26, 2013, the Defendant purchased 20 kgs from the company’s factory, “Co., Ltd. E” (Seoul Gangseo-gu F materials), and indicated the origin in the packaging in a plastic box, and attached an eco-friendly certification mark for agricultural chemicals without an eco-friendly certification, and sold 19.5 km (total 325,000 won) to unspecified consumers via G.

Accordingly, the Defendant made a false indication of the origin of agricultural products and at the same time put a certification mark on products that did not receive eco-friendly certification.

(b).

arrow