beta
Text
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendant did not state the fact that he carried on the meat packaging business with D having business permission at the time when he was investigated by the investigative agency, and there is no objective evidence to support this. Therefore, the Defendant cannot be deemed to have carried on the business with D.
In addition, the defendant is suspected to have obtained a business license under the name of D because there is a serious and obvious defect in the business license.
Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant on the ground that the defendant obtained permission for business in the name of D as a partner is erroneous.
2. A person who intends to engage in meat packaging business in charges shall obtain permission from the Governor of a Special Self-Governing Province or the head of a Si/Gun/Gu for each workplace;
Nevertheless, without obtaining permission from the competent authorities, the Defendant leased the freezing warehouse equivalent to 120 square meters in Gwangju Mine-gu (hereinafter “instant freezing warehouse”) from December 2, 2013 to April 18, 2014, sealed and disposed of meat by-products, such as the head of the swine, swind, etc. for sale, and stored the head of the pigs amounting to KRW 4 million in the market price in the said freezing warehouse.
3. The lower court found the following circumstances based on the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, i.e., (1) obtained permission to operate meat packaging business on December 11, 2013 at the Gwangju Mine District where the freezing warehouse of this case is located; (2) the Defendant was investigated by the police and contracted the freezing warehouse of this case in the name of D; (3) stated that the Defendant was the same before the freezing was detained; and (4) D had the position of the president and the chief in the court of the lower court, but, with respect to the freezing warehouse of this case, the Defendant made an investment therein.