logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대법원 2016.12.1.선고 2016도14357 판결
가.식품위생법위반·나.보건범죄단속에관한특별조치법위반(부정식품제조등)·(인정된죄명식품위생법위반)
Cases

2016Do14357 A. Violation of the Food Sanitation Act

(b) Violation of the Act on Special Measures for the Control of Public Health Crimes (Manufacture of Illegal Foods);

(Certified Crime of Violation of Food Sanitation Act)

Defendant

1. A;

2. B

3. C

4. Daehan:

Appellant

Defendants

Judgment of the lower court

Daegu High Court Decision 2015No157 decided August 25, 2016

Imposition of Judgment

December 1, 2016

Text

All appeals are dismissed.

Reasons

The grounds of appeal are examined.

Criminal facts have to be proved to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt (Article 307(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act); however, the preparation of evidence and the probative value of evidence conducted on the premise of fact-finding belong to the free judgment of the fact-finding court (Article 308 of the Criminal Procedure Act); the lower court, on the grounds stated in its reasoning, acknowledged the fact that Defendant A, etc. manufactured satisfe and satferies by adding industrial sulfur to the satfe in the satfeum satfeum satfeum on May 9, 2014, and manufactured satfeum by using it; even if it is found to be guilty, the lower court did not accept the Defendants’ allegation in the grounds for

The allegation in the grounds of appeal disputing such fact-finding by the lower court is merely an error of the lower court’s determination on the selection and probative value of evidence, which actually belongs to the lower court’s free judgment. In addition, even when examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the aforementioned legal doctrine and relevant legal principles and evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err in its judgment by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence inconsistent with logical and empirical rules, contrary

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Park Jae-young

Justices Kim So-young

Justices Kim Yong-deok

Justices Kim Jae-han

Justices Lee Dong-won

arrow