logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2016.08.12 2016노1213
농수산물의원산지표시에관한법률위반
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the charges of this case, on the ground that the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment, even though the Defendant did not indicate that the origin of the instant case overlaped on the Megrab, which was kept on the individual table, as “the Netherlands mountain and freezing,” by stating that it might cause confusion as to the origin.

B. Even if the charge of the instant case’s sentencing is found guilty, the sentence (2 million won) imposed by the lower court on the Defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below as to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of the legal principles, the defendant can be recognized as having put a mark that could cause confusion of origin as stated in the facts constituting the crime in the judgment below, and thus, this part of the defendant's assertion is

(1) The Defendant, attached to the restaurant wall, indicated the origin sign attached to the restaurant wall as “200 g 12,000 g 12,000 g 12,000 g g 10,000 g g dub g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g s

(2) However, in addition to the indications described in the above paragraph (1) from the court below, the Defendant entered the origin of the Defendant, as “the Netherlands mountain and freezing,” the two separate pages, which were kept on individual tables.

One of the arguments, in light of the following points, individual Qua New Market submitted by the defendant in the original trial seems to have been prepared after the enforcement.

(A) In the police investigation, the Defendant indicated “Tang Does as a domestic product for the double galbation,” and provided as an import product for the double galbing of galbs, thereby in the mountain of the Netherlands.

arrow