2017Do10273 Violation of Livestock Products Sanitary Control Act

A

Defendant

Attorney S

Seoul Western District Court Decision 2016No1364 Decided June 15, 2017

September 21, 2017

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul Western District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The summary of the facts charged found guilty by the lower judgment is as follows.

The defendant is a person who operates a company's meat processing and import wholesale and retail business.

Anyone shall name, manufacturing method, ingredients, dietitians, raw materials, use, quality and packaging of livestock products.

(1) No indication or advertisement that is different from facts or exaggerated, and all kinds of audits and inspections;

Using the head of the facility, experience instruments, etc. or having received "certification", "Guarantee", or "Recommendation";

No indication or advertisement that expresses any content similar thereto shall be made.

Calal is permitted to use Islamic curriculum under Islamic tariff rates. Products permitted to be consumed by Islamic curriculum.

As a general term, in the case of livestock products, Islamic butchers (docaters) in the case of Islamic slaughters (docaters)

The name of free algora and the name of algora and the name of algora and the name of algora;

It refers to the slaughter process of Do-ro without any pain at a time.

The defendants shall grow up against the chickens, cattle, and sheep in accordance with the Enforcement Rules of the Livestock Products Sanitary Control Act.

Notwithstanding the fact that there was no certification, the packaging paper from February 29, 2012 to July 22, 2015

c) indicate 'HALAL 100%' and indicate marks similar to the grow certification mark; c c c c c sc us;

Use of any content certified on the packaging of livestock products by selling crypter, crypter, or

A similar indication was made to express similar contents.

2. The lower court determined that the Defendant’s indication on the packaging was “cated in a simple emulated manner.”

whether it is not an indication to inform the public, but it is understood as a product to be a product guaranteed byNuman group.

The former Livestock Products Sanitary Control Act ( February 3, 2016), on the grounds that the defendant's act is a highly active mark, etc.

Articles 45(3) and 32(1) of the former Livestock Products Act (amended by Act No. 14025)

Article 52 of the Enforcement Rule of the Livelihood Management Act (wholly amended by Ordinance of the Prime Minister No. 1233 on December 31, 2015) (wholly amended by Ordinance of the Prime Minister)

Use of the content that the certification or guarantee was received under paragraph (1) 8, or any similar content;

It is judged guilty on the ground that it constitutes a "label or advertisement" expressed.

3. However, the above determination by the lower court is difficult to accept as it is.

(1) The finding of guilt in a criminal trial has no room for a judge to make a reasonable doubt.

evidence of probative value that leads to the conviction that the facts charged are true;

As such, even if there is no such evidence, the suspect is suspected to be guilty.

Do Supreme Court Decision 2005Do8675 Decided March 9, 2006 (Supreme Court Decision 2005Do8675 Decided March 9, 2006)

[Reference] If:

(2) The record reveals the following circumstances.

1. The mark expressed by the Defendant is in English for the upper part in the nesn part and in the middle part of the HALAL in the English language.

JA and under the bottom of the United States shall be written in English with the ASURED (hereinafter referred to as the “instant mark”).

(d) a foreign institution or organization certifying the products to be raised. The certification mark shall be replaced by the certification mark.

The word or symbol in Rus and the mark in this case may be seen as such words or symbol

The words “ASURED” on the record is referred to as the certification mark of such institution or organization.

There is no material that can be seen as being used in the meaning of "Evidence".

② It is understood that ordinary consumers understand this case’s mark as a mark that it was certified.

It is difficult to find out objective evidence or circumstances to conceal it. Rather, the first instance court cited by the lower court.

A witness F, which is admitted as evidence in the summary of the evidence of the reasoning of the judgment, shall put the mark of this case in the court of first instance.

It is not understood that it was merely understood as an indication that it was a product, but was certified as an indication that it was a product.

The statement was made to the effect.

(3) A relatively stable defendant's meat processing and selling business whose annual sales amounting to eight billion won is eight billion won.

The Defendant appears to have been operating in a manner that is not an overseas export, and the Defendant has the purpose of domestic sales not an overseas export.

that is deemed to have been operating, which may indicate the certification of being lawfully raised in Korea at the time of this case.

that is not a method to indicate that the product is to be raised, taking into account the fact that there is no method to do so,

It is difficult to see that there was a motive to indicate that it was certified as being raised.

(3) In full view of these circumstances, only the evidence submitted by the court below or the prosecutor is produced.

use the content that the defendant is certified as being raised, or express any similar content;

It is difficult to view that the fact that the indication was made is proven without any reasonable doubt.

(4) Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the sole basis of the circumstances indicated in its reasoning.

The Court determined that such use or indication was made as indicated in the facts charged. The lower court’s determination

on the basis of exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules; or

In so determining, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on false labelling, etc.

section 1.

(5) Therefore, the guilty part of the judgment of the court below should be reversed, and there is a relation of such a crime.

Since the acquittal portion of reasons also should be reversed, the judgment of the court below should be reversed in its entirety.

4. Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion.

We conclude that it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Cho Jae-chul

Justices Go Young-young

Chief Justice Cho Jae-hee

Justices Kim Jong-il