The case holding that it cannot be punished for violation of the provisions of Article 33 (1) 3 of the Processing of Livestock Products Act, in case where miscellaneous meat from which pathogenic microorganisms, such as spirll germs or irpirosis, are sold to the general public as raw materials for cooking.

In principle, although food poisoning should not be detected in meat, exceptionally, in the case of meat supplied as raw materials for manufacturing and processing, it does not conform to the processing standards and components standards of livestock products publicly notified by the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry even if food poisoning is detected, and if the purpose of the processing standards and components specifications of the above livestock products is to allow food poisoning even if food poisoning is detected through the processing process of fish-free microorganisms, the case held that Article 33 (1) 3 of the Processing of Livestock Products Act cannot be punished for violating Article 33 (1) 3 of the Processing Act merely on the ground that it is reasonable to view that not only manufacturing and processing raw materials but also cooking raw materials are detected in the case of meat supplied as raw materials for cooking, and that the same is not applicable to the processing standards and components specifications of the above livestock products.

Article 4(2) of the Processing of Livestock Products Act, Article 3(1)3 of the Processing of Livestock Products Act, Article 53 subparag. 1 of the Enforcement Rule of the Processing of Livestock Products Act

Defendant

Prosecutor

Lathere trees

Attorney Kim Young-young

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2002Da4346 delivered on January 13, 2004

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

The court below found the defendant not guilty on the ground of the following facts: (a) based on the processing standards and components specifications of livestock products (as of June 26, 1998, the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry announced, No. 1993-34, and June 26, 1998, the same applies hereinafter), the scope of "dried as raw materials for manufacturing and processing" exceptionally permitted even if food poisoning is discovered in meat; (b) based on this, the court below acquitted the defendant; (c) disregarding the differences in the prior meaning of "raw materials for manufacturing and processing" and "raw materials for cooking" and arbitrarily expanded interpretation, it goes against the principle of no punishment without the law; (d) meat taken as it without undergoing any processing and heating cooking procedures, and thus, (e) it is almost rare that the court below found the defendant guilty on the ground that the control of the processing standards and components specifications of livestock products and the Processing of Livestock Products Act related to the Processing of Livestock Products Act, and (e) even if the meat was sold at the department stores or the store stores for cooking, the court below found the defendant guilty of this case.

2. Summary of the facts charged in the instant case and judgment of the lower court

A. Summary of the facts charged in this case

around August 20, 198, the Defendant: (a) purchased Dozine (hereinafter referred to as "speed") used as manufacturing raw materials for animal feed or machinery oil, etc., or transported 00 Dozine (hereinafter referred to as "ten Dozine") with plastic boxes (hereinafter referred to as "ten Dozine"), and stored them on the floor and stored in the 5th place of work without any sanitary measure; (b) purchased Dozine (hereinafter referred to as "ten Dozine") from 00 Dozine to 00 Dozine (hereinafter referred to as "Dozine"), 10 Dozine (hereinafter referred to as "Dozine") and 10 Dozine (hereinafter referred to as "Dozine"), 100 Dozine (hereinafter referred to as "Dozine"), 200 Dozine (hereinafter referred to as "Dozine"), 50 Dozine (hereinafter referred to as "Dozine"), and 98 Dozine (hereinafter referred to as "Dozineumumumumumumumumumumumumum").

B. Judgment of the court below

In light of the provisions of the Act and subordinate statutes, the legislative process, and the purport of the amendment, etc. on the meat, which is prohibited from sale, the court below, prior to June 16, 1998, was prohibited from detecting food poisoning such as the food poisoning in accordance with the old food code, but on June 16, 1998, the revision of the food code and the implementation of the Specialized Processing of Livestock Products Act under the reflective consideration of the unfairness of these regulations, as to the meat for cooking purposes, even if food poisoning, such as the food poisoning and the food poisoning, are detected, such meat was found to be in conformity with the standards determined by the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry (the processing standards and components specifications of livestock products under Article 4 (2) of the Processing of Livestock Products Act). Accordingly, the sale of the meat for cooking purposes cannot be deemed prohibited by the Processing of Livestock Products Act, and otherwise, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant was not guilty under the former Livestock Products Processing Act or the former Livestock Products Processing Act (the latter part of the Livestock Products Processing Act).

3. The judgment of this Court

A. The issues of the instant case

(1) The basic facts

According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the defendant operated slaughter business for the maintenance of transportation, and kept the miscellaneous area collected from the time livestock and marina market, etc. in the workplace as it is. The defendant employed the miscellaneous area and let the miscellaneous area open the miscellaneous area in the workplace, and sold it as the raw material for cooking to the merchants of the miscellaneous middle site in the workplace with the miscellaneous miscellaneous unit, and the prosecutor's investigator was informed of this, and the above company controlled the above company after collecting the miscellaneous area (hereinafter referred to as "miscellaneous land of this case") and sealed it in the plastic container, etc., and stored it into the Seoul District Prosecutor's Office. The fact that the National Science Investigation Research Institute requested the appraisal as to whether the miscellaneous microbe included in the miscellaneous microbe, as a result of the appraisal by the National Scientific Research Research Institute, found that the miscellaneous area was detected by the miscellaneous germs and the miscellaneous germs.

(2) Relevant statutes

① According to Articles 4(2) and 33(1)3 of the Processing of Livestock Products Act (wholly amended by Act No. 5454, Dec. 13, 1997 and enforced June 14, 1998), and Article 53 subparag. 1 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act (wholly amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry No. 1287, Jul. 3, 1998), livestock products contaminated with, or likely to be contaminated with, pathogenic microorganisms shall be prohibited from selling, but if they meet the processing standards and specifications of ingredients of livestock products publicly notified by the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry, the above provision shall not apply.

② In the processing standards and components specifications of the livestock products notified by the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry, the parts of Item (e) (i) of Item (i) of Item (i) of Item (hereinafter referred to as "the instant standard provisions") among the "application of the common standards and specifications for the livestock products". "Food (excluding raw materials for manufacture and processing)" in the part of Item (e) of Item (i) of Item (i) of Item (hereinafter referred to as "the instant standard provisions," and "food (excluding raw materials for manufacturing and processing)" should not be found in the processed food in which the meat is taken in without any further processing, heating, or heating, depending on its characteristics, unless it is found that the stoll, yellow stores, yellow stoves, chlodideotho, chropoly stoxis, chloroum stoves, O157:H7, etc., of the said processed meat and meat products, it should not be deemed inappropriate to detect food poisoning in the process of the processing of livestock products."

(3) Thus, the issue of the instant case is whether it can be interpreted that it does not meet the processing standards and components specifications of livestock products, such as the sale of meat containing Leptospirum and girs to the general public as raw materials for cooking.

(b) Markets:

살피건대, 기록에 의하면 {원래, 판매가 금지되는 식육에 대하여 종전에는 축산물위생처리법(1996. 8. 8. 법률 제5153호로 개정된 이후의 것, 축산물은 일반식품과는 달리 가축전염병을 사람에게 직접 전파하는 특성이 있어 농림부가 가축의 도살부터 축산물의 가공, 판매 등에 이르는 전 과정을 일관성 있게 관리하기 위해 1997. 12. 13. 법률 제5443호로 전문 개정되면서 축산물가공처리법으로 제명이 변경되면서 판매가 금지되는 축산물 등에 대한 규정을 따로 두었다)에서 별도의 규정을 두지 않고 구 식품위생법(1995. 12. 29 법률 제5099호로 개정된 이후의 것)에서 식육판매업을 포함한 식품판매업 일반에 대한 규정을 두면서 병원미생물에 의하여 오염되었거나 그 염려가 있어 인체의 건강을 해할 우려가 있는 식품을 판매하지 못하도록 하고 그 위반행위를 처벌하였고, 같은 법 제7조 제1항 , 제12조 에서 식품의 기준, 규격에 대한 식품공전을 고시하도록 하여 이에 근거한 식품공전에서는 "식품에서는 식중독균인 살모넬라균, 황색포도상구균, 장염비브리오균, 크로스티리디움균, 리스테리아균 등이 검출되어서는 아니 되며, 식육 및 식육제품에 있어서는 결핵균, 탄저균, 브루셀라균이 검출되어서는 아니 된다."고 규정하였는데, 그 후 도축 후 별도의 미생물 제어공정(즉, 가열 등 살균공정)을 거치면 사멸하는데도 그 제어공정을 거치기 전의 식육에는 잔류할 수밖에 없는 살모넬라균 등 미생물이 검출되었을 모든 경우에 식품으로서 부적합하다는 판단은 불합리하므로 이에 대한 예외를 인정하여야 한다는 반성적 고려에 따라, 식품의약품안전청 고시 제1998-68호(1998. 6. 16. 시행)로 위 조항을 "식육(제조, 가공용 원료는 제외한다), 살균 또는 멸균처리하였거나 더 이상의 가공, 가열조리를 하지 않고 그대로 섭취하는 가공식품에서는 특성에 따라 살모넬라, 황색포도상구균, 장염비브리오균, 클로스트리디움 퍼프린젠스, 리스테리아 모노사이토제네스, 대장균 O157:H7 등 식중독균이 검출되어서는 아니 되며, 또한 식육 및 식육제품에 있어서는 결핵균, 탄저균, 브루셀라균이 검출되어서는 아니 된다."로 개정함으로써, 제조·가공용 원료의 경우에는 식중독균이 검출된다고 하더라도 위 고시 기준에 적합한 것으로 되었으며, 그 후 축산물가공처리법 같은 법 제4조 제2항에 근거하여 농림부장관에 의하여 고시된 축산물의 가공기준 및 성분규격에도 위 개정된 식품공전과 동일한 내용의 이 사건 기준 조항을 두게 되었던 점, 한편 일반 가정에서의 조리 가열 과정과 공장에서 이루어지는 미생물 살균 과정이 동등한 미생물 살균력을 가진다고 볼 수는 없겠지만, 원심 및 당심의 국립수의과학검역원장, 식품의약품안전청장에 대한 각 사실조회회신서의 기재에 따르면, 이 사건 잡육에서 발견된 크렙실라균은 사람이나 동물의 소화장기에 존재하는 장내세균총으로서 대장균군의 일종으로 식품위생법상 관리되고 있는 식중독균은 아니며, 일반적으로 그 중심부 온도를 섭씨 63도 이상에서 가열살균하거나 또는 이와 동등한 효력이 있는 방법으로 가열살균하면 사멸하는 것으로, 살모넬라균은 식품위생법상 관리되고 있는 식중독균이기는 하나, 중심온도를 섭씨 73도로 맞추어 약 3분간 가열하는 것만으로도 사멸하는 것으로 보고되어 있으므로, 위 균 모두 일반 가정에서의 통상적인 조리 가열 과정만으로도 충분히 사멸될 것으로 예상된다는 것인 점, 농림부 2002년 발간 축산물가공처리법령 질의 응답집, 원심법원의 식품의약품안전청장에 대한 사실조회 회신서의 기재에 따르면, 농림부와 식품의약품안전청은 이 사건 기준 조항의 '제조, 가공용 원료'에는 '조리용 원료'도 포함되는 것으로 유권해석을 하고 있는 점, 피고인은 이 사건 잡육을 중간소개소 상인들에게 일반적인 조리용 원료로 판매하였을 뿐, 아무런 가열 과정을 거치지 아니한 채 식육 상태 그대로를 섭취하는 용도로 판매하지는 않았던 것으로 보이는 점} 등의 사정이 인정되는바, 이 사건 기준 조항의 취지가 제조, 가공용 원료는 어차피 미생물 제어 공정을 통하여 미생물이 사멸될 것을 염두에 두고 식중독균이 검출되더라도 이를 허용하는 것이라면, 이 사건 잡육에서 검출된 크렙실라균, 살모넬라균이 공장 등지에서 이루어지는 미생물 제어 공정뿐만 아니라, 일반 가정에서의 가열 조리 과정만 거치더라도 모두 사멸될 것으로 보이는 이상, 제조·가공용 원료뿐만 아니라, 조리용 원료에서 위 균들이 검출되었다 하더라도 이는 이 사건 기준 조항에 적합한 것으로 봄이 상당하다.

(c) Conclusion

If so, there is no clear evidence as to the fact that miscellaneous microorganisms, such as hump germs or hump germs, were sold in violation of the provisions of Article 33 (1) 3 of the Processing of Livestock Products Act. Furthermore, it cannot be punished for violation of the provisions of Article 33 (1) 3 of the Processing of Livestock Products Act. Furthermore, there is no clear evidence as to the fact that the miscellaneous meat in this case was sold for any other purpose than manufacturing and processing raw materials, including miscellaneous meat for cooking, or that the miscellaneous meat in this case was detected in separate pathogenic microorganisms that are not destroyed only by the process of heating cooking at a general home or is likely to be contaminated with such pathogenic microorganisms. Therefore, the court below's decision of not guilty on the ground that there is no proof of a crime as to the facts charged in this case, and there is no error of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment due to mistake of facts

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the prosecutor's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Kim Jong-il (Presiding Judge)