logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2013.05.10 2013노117
식품위생법위반
Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the erroneous determination of facts (the point of manufacture and sale of food containing harmful substances against Defendant B) and the fact that Defendant B is the representative of “E”, the fact that Defendant B received KRW 2 million per month from Defendant B and the relationship between Defendant B and A, etc., Defendant B may be recognized as having been aware that the “F” product contains dolusent components, and thus, Defendant B may be fully convicted of this part of the facts charged, but the lower court found the facts erroneous and acquitted Defendant B of this part of the facts charged.

B. The sentencing of the lower court (the Defendant B’s fine of KRW 2 million and the Defendant C’s fine of KRW 5 million) against the Defendants is too unjustifiable and unjust.

2. Determination

A. (1) The actual operator of Gangdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government E, and the defendant B is a representative and employee under the name of the above company. No person shall sell, collect, manufacture, import, process, use, cook, store, subdivide, transport, or display for the purpose of sale, food, etc. containing toxic or harmful substances, or foods likely to do so, and any person who intends to engage in the business of manufacturing medicines must obtain permission from the Commissioner of the Korea Food and Drug Administration. The defendant B in collusion with the above "E" office around March 2012, manufactures "F" products, which are hazardous substances publicly notified by the Commissioner of the Korea Food and Drug Administration for the purpose of sale and special drugs.

4. From around April 4.

5. By the time of June, 16, the said “F” product sold to consumers, including Defendant C, a total of KRW 4,840,000.

The judgment of the court below held that the court below was based on Defendant B’s assertion that he was unaware of the addition of the “F” product to the “F” product, and that Defendant B was registered as the representative of Defendant E.

arrow