[1] The purpose of joint penal provisions under Article 79 of the Food Sanitation Act

[2] The case holding that the employee cannot be exempted from liability under the joint penal provisions solely on the ground that the food business owner was hospitalized in a traffic accident at the time of running an entertainment drinking house business without permission

[1] Article 79 of the Food Sanitation Act / [2] Article 79 of the Food Sanitation Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 77Do412 delivered on May 24, 197 (Gong1977, 10121)

Defendant

Defendant

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2007No1711 Decided September 6, 2007

The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

Article 79 of the Food Sanitation Act (hereinafter “the Act”) provides that when a representative of a corporation, or an agent, employee, or other servant of a corporation or individual commits an offence under Articles 74 through 77 of the Act in connection with the business of the corporation or individual, not only shall such offender be punished, but also the corporation or individual shall be punished by a fine under the relevant Article (see Supreme Court Decision 77Do412, May 24, 197). The defendant’s employee is a traffic accident at the time of running an entertainment drinking house business without permission of this case, the defendant’s employee cannot be exempted from the responsibility for supervision as a food business owner under the said joint penal provisions. Thus, it is reasonable that the court below recognizes the defendant’s liability as a food business owner and imposes a fine on the defendant in accordance with the said joint penal provisions, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence and the misunderstanding of legal principles as to the Food Sanitation Act, as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

In addition, under Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing is allowed only for a case on which death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment or imprisonment without prison labor for not less than ten years has been imposed. Thus, in this case where the defendant has been sentenced to a more minor fine, the reason that the sentencing of the sentence is unfair is not legitimate.

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

Justices Kim Hwang-sik (Presiding Justice)