beta
Text
Defendant
All appeals filed by A, C and Prosecutor are dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of the grounds for appeal (the mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles);
A. H and C operated by Defendant A and C (hereinafter “C”) by an individual cannot be deemed the same place of business.
B. As to the non-guilty portion of Defendant A and C, the above Defendants processed the frozen fishery products, not the processed fishery products, not the processed fishery products, and recognized the additional certification obligation as subject to the food safety management certification, and also recognized the obligation to apply for changes in accordance with the food safety management certification standards as a relocation of the location where the additional place of business is established. (2) As to the non-guilty portion of Defendant B and D (hereinafter “D”), the person who is obliged to observe the food safety management certification standards and the food manufacturing and processing business operator’s obligation under the Food Sanitation Control Act, shall be determined on the basis of the registered details with the competent authority, and the above Defendants
2. Determination
A. As to Defendant A and C’s argument, Defendant A and C asserted the same purport as the above argument, and the lower court rejected the above argument in light of the detailed grounds for determination. 2) Although the appellate court did not have any new objective reason that could affect the formation of a documentary evidence during the hearing process, it was clearly erroneous in the first instance judgment when it was intended to re-examine the first instance judgment after an ex post facto and ex post facto determination.
There should be reasonable grounds to deem that the argument leading to the fact-finding is remarkably unfair due to the violation of logical and empirical rules, etc., and the determination on the fact-finding of the first instance court should not be arbitrarily followed without such exceptional circumstances (see Supreme Court Decision 2016Do18031, Mar. 22, 2017). 3) There is no objective reason to affect the formation of a new conviction from the trial court, and there is no reason to believe that there is no objective reason to affect the formation of a conviction from the trial.