logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2014.10.24 2014노2554
축산물위생관리법위반
Text

All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts 1) As to the operation of sales business of unreported livestock products (the crime No. 1-A of the judgment of the original court)

(B) Defendant A and B are Defendant C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Co., Ltd.”) engaging in the business of selling imported food products from Thailand.

(2) While operating a livestock product sales business, Defendant A and B did not know of the fact that the period of distribution was 42 marb in the Defendant Company’s freezing warehouse and livestock products storage (Article 1(b) of the first instance judgment). In addition, if the Defendants knew of the fact that the period of distribution was 42 marb in the Defendant Company’s freezing warehouse, the Defendants disposed of the said marb, as a matter of course, on the grounds that they did not know of the fact that the period of distribution was 42 marb in the Defendant Company’s freezing, and the Defendants knew of the fact that the period of distribution was 42 marb in the Defendant Company’s freezing warehouse.

3) Regarding the operation of livestock product processing business without permission (the crime No. 1-C of the original judgment)

(B) The period during which the Defendants engaged in livestock product processing business, including processing and selling, etc., without obtaining permission, is from February 2, 2013 to April 2013. However, each sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendants (Defendant A and B: imprisonment of two years; imprisonment of three years; fine of KRW 30 million, etc.) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts, the witness T and U shall determine the type and quantity of livestock products in U and other business partners of the defendant company to purchase them, and order them to purchase them, and the price was paid by adding the oil value to the purchase price. The owner of the business ordered to the defendant A is designated by the court.

arrow