2013 Highest 358 Violation of Livestock Products Sanitary Control Act

1. Defendant 1. Manufacturing industry

The residence omitted.

Place of Registration omitted

2. Defendant 2 and employees;

The residence omitted.

Place of Registration omitted

3. Defendant 3 and operation of the company

The residence omitted.

Place of Registration omitted

4. Defendant 4 and processing business;

Residence omitted

Place of Registration omitted

5. Defendant 5 and employees;

The residence omitted.

Place of Registration omitted

6. Defendant 6 and employees;

The residence omitted.

Place of Registration omitted

7. Defendant 7 and veterinarian;

Residence omitted

Place of Registration omitted

8. Defendant 8 A company

Location omitted

Defendant 4

○○○ (Public Prosecution) and △△△ (Public Trial)

Attorney OOO (for the defendant 1, 3)

Law Firm (Defendant 4, Defendant 5, Defendant 6, Defendant 7, Defendant 8 A)

A For the Company A

[Defendant-Appellant]

April 15, 2014

Defendant 1, Defendant 2, Defendant 3, Defendant 5, Defendant 6, and Defendant 4, respectively, shall be punished by imprisonment for eight months, and imprisonment for one year and six months.

피고인7을 벌금 700만 원에, 피고인8 ▲ 회사를 벌금 1억 원에 각 처한다. 피고인 7이 위 벌금을 납입하지 아니하는 경우 10만 원을 1일로 환산한 기간 피고인을 노역장에 유치한다.

However, the execution of each of the above punishments shall be suspended for two years for Defendant 1 and Defendant 2, and for Defendant 5 and Defendant 6 for three years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

Defendant 7 and Defendant 8 are ordered to pay an amount equivalent to the above fine.

Defendant 3 and Defendant 1 operated a company that processes by-products of chickens, such as chickens, with the permission for meat packaging business in the name of “000 between husband and wife,” and “00,” (hereinafter Defendant 1 is registered as Defendant 1, 000, and Defendant 2 is registered as Defendant 3, and the process of each of the above factories is organically connected). Defendant 2 was a person in charge of managing ○○○○ through the duties of the vice president from ○○○ to ○○○○○, and Defendant 2 was a person in charge of managing mecophers. The Defendants were supplied by Defendant 8, etc. with the primary scopter (-2°5°C), the primary scopterus (hereinafter referred to as “scopterus copterus”) in the scopic state of cooling (hereinafter referred to as “scopterus”) after being supplied by Defendant 8, etc. with the scoping company, etc.

1. Keeping livestock products with expiration of the distribution period or violating the matters to be observed by business operators;

No person shall sell livestock products, the expiration date marked on the relevant livestock products, or treat, process, pack, use, import, store, transport, or display them for sale, and a livestock product processing business operator shall report the name of the items to be converted into the Mayor/Do Governor or the head of a Si/Gun/Gu who has conducted business permission in advance, the weight, storage method and distribution period of the items to be converted into the freezing products, and comply with the standards for labeling livestock products

그럼에도 불구하고 피고인들은 2012. 12.경부터 2013. 3. 15.경까지 피고인8 △▲회사, △△△△으로부터 냉장상태의 탈피닭발을 공급받아 발골작업을 하던 중, 작업진행 속도를 맞추지 못하여 각 표시된 유통기한(제조일이 각 기재되어 있으며, 유통기한은 '제조일로부터 10일까지'로 표기되어 있음) 내에 발골작업을 마치고 가공을 완료할 수 없게 되자, 이를 냉동보관하여 추후에 작업을 완료하고 나중에 공급물량이 부족할 경우를 대비하기로 공모하고, 영업자인 피고인 1은 □□□□에게 냉장제품을 냉동제품으로 전환하는 품목, 중량, 보관방법, 유통기간을 전혀 보고하지 아니한 채, 2013. 4. 25.경 ○○○○ 3공장 냉동창고에서 유통기한이 2012. 12. 27.부터 2013. 3. 11.까지인 냉장 탈피닭발 78박스(15kg 들이)를, 0000 1공장 내부 냉동창고에서 유통기한이 2012. 7. 23.까지인 냉장 탈피닭발 115박스(15kg 들이)를, 위 1공장 외부 냉동창고에서 유통기한이 2012. 12. 11.부터 2013. 3. 25.까지인 냉장 탈피닭발 1,910박스(15kg 들이)를 판매할 목적으로 냉동보관하였다. 이로써피고인들은공모하여표시된유통기한이경과된축산물을보관하고,고인1은 냉동제품 전환과 관련된 영업자 준수사항을 위반하였다.

2. Selling livestock products of expiration of the distribution period;

As seen above, while the Defendants kept scood scood scoods supplied by ○○○○ 1 factory, 3 factory, and Defendant 8 Scoods in custody with the expiration of the circulation period, the Defendants processed them as 'cood scoods without the bones' mixed with the chickens for which the circulation period has not lapsed, and conspired to sell them. From December 23, 2012 to April 23, 2013, the ratio of scood scood scoodscoods for which the circulation period has not lapsed was eight; 8; 2; 3; 3; 43; 43; 1,300 g) processed them with scoods without the bones; and 1,318,72,00 g) sold livestock products with the expiration of the distribution period indicated in collusion with the Defendants.

[Defendant AA company] Defendant 8 (director) is a chickens processing plant that obtained permission for food processing business, permission for food subdivision sales business, meat packaging business, and livestock product storage business. Defendant 4 was appointed as director of the above company and operated overall control. Defendant 5 was in charge of assisting the above company’s factory processing team in managing and producing 1 parts of OOOOO so that it can supply the processed parts of OOOOO to the processing company. Defendant 6 was in charge of supplying the processed parts of OOOOOO to the processing company. Defendant 6 was in charge of overall control so that the by-products produced in the OOOOOO (OOOM) can be supplied to the processing company as the head of the OOOO of the above company. Defendant 6 was in charge of performing the role of supplying the by-products produced in the OOOOO (OOOM) department, part of the by-products produced in the Defendant 8 A company.

1. As a result of inspection of meat processed at a slaughter place, Defendant7 inspector, veterinarian, or business operator shall place a mark of inspection on livestock products that passed an inspection, as prescribed by statutes, and shall not put a false mark of inspection on livestock products;

From around April 25, 2011 to April 25, 2013, the Defendant served as the veterinarian in charge at Defendant 8’s △△△△△, and shared the roles with 3 other veterinarians (the Defendant, as the head of △△△△△, ordered the veterinarian to conduct the inspection, reported the result of the inspection to the head of the collection and directors, and reported the food pass approval seal), and conducted the decommissioning, dismantling, etc. of the chickens entered in the mooring at the mooring, the Defendant must confirm the skin disease, skin infection, etc. at the time of the inspection by vehicle, and the Defendant, as it is, failed to carry out 20gs with 20 groke, without being marked “3 2.5 groke, 1.5 g., 3 g., 3 g., c., c., c., d., d., d., d., d., c., d., d., d.

2. Joint criminal conduct by Defendants 4, 6, and 5

No person shall sell, or treat, process, pack, use, import, store, transport or display livestock products contaminated with pathogenic microorganisms, or livestock products that are likely to cause harm to human health by mixing or adding other substances, or by other reasons.

그럼에도 불구하고 피고인들은 위와 같이 역할을 분담한 뒤, 부산물실 작업자들의 임금, 작업률, 닭발 단가, 생산공정 등의 이유로 'Pododermatitis(접촉성 피부염, 네크로 바실러스나 퓨시포미스 등의 세균 감염이 원인)' 증상의 탈피 닭발을 위 ○○○○에 그대로 공급하기로 공모하였다. 피고인들은 2011. 3. 22.경부터 2013. 2. 23.경까지 'Pododermatitis' 증상의 탈피 닭발을 크기가 작은 닭발 등과 혼합하여 15kg 들이 박스에 담아 ○○○○에 78박스(1,170kg)를 공급하면서 시가 1,813,500원에 판매하는 등 그 무렵부터 2013. 2. 23.경까지 총 82,439kg 시가 127,864,150원 상당을 판매하였다. 3. 피고인8 ▲회사(◎◎이사 피고인4)

The above defendant 7, the employer, committed the above violation at the date, time, and place specified in the above Paragraph (1) with respect to the defendant's business. The defendant 4, the director 1, the employer, and the defendant 6 and 5 committed the above violation at the time and place specified in the above Paragraph (2) with respect to the defendant's business.

Summary of Evidence

“Defendant 1, Defendant 2, Defendant 3”

【One point in the market】

1. Defendants’ respective statements in the first trial records;

1. ◆◆◆에 대한 경찰 피의자신문조서의 진술기재

1. ㅁㅁㅁ에 대한 경찰 피의자신문조서의 일부 진술기재

1. Investigation report (affixing photographs inside and outside a factory, three factories, and control sites);

1. Grounds for the designation of a report on the manufacture of items, method of manufacture, and period for distribution;

1. The inquiry about whether or not the expiration date of the distribution is violated in freezing and storing the refrigerating products;

1. Each on-site photograph and each control site photograph;

[The second point in the market]

1. Statement of the suspect interrogation protocol against Defendant 3 by the prosecution

1. Partial statement of the suspect interrogation protocol of Defendant 2 by the prosecution (a mix the frozen products with those not freezing, and Defendant 1 and Defendant 3 also knew of these facts)

1. Statements Nos. 1 and 2 of the police suspect interrogation protocol against Defendant 1 (a statement that Defendant 1 kept in custody of inventory because it is limited to processing within the distribution period)

1. ▤▤▤에 대한 경찰 피의자신문조서 중 일부 진술기재(냉동창고에서 나온 닭발로 가공이 된다는 것을 알고 있었다는 진술)4)

1. The amount of raw materials supplied and the amount of raw materials released (from January 2012 to April 30, 2013)

1. 각 거래명세표, 각 거래내역서 『피고인4, 피고인5, 피고인6, 피고인8 ▲회사,

1. Defendants’ respective statements in the first trial records;

1. Partial statement of the suspect interrogation protocol against Defendant 7 by the prosecution

1. ▤▤▤, ▦▦▦, ▧▧▧에 대한 각 검찰 진술조서의 각 일부 진술기재

1.▨▨▨에 대한 검찰 진술조서 중 ■■■ 진술부분의 진술기재

1. Statement on Defendant 1 at the second police interrogation protocol;

1. Statement of the police suspect interrogation protocol on Defendant 3 and DD

1. Partial statement of the police interrogation protocol on the dedicated deposit;

1. ■■■에 대한 제1,2회 경찰 진술조서의 진술기재 1 ▧▧▧, ◐◐◐, ◑◑◑, ®®®, ＠＠＠에대한각경찰진술조서의각진술기재

1. ▦▦▦, CCC에 대한 각 경찰 진술조서의 각 일부 진술기재

1. 거래약정서(피고인8 ▲ 회사와 ○○○○ 계약서)5)

1. The trading ledger (from April 1, 201 to February 28, 2013), the trading ledger (from January 1, 2013 to April 26, 201), and the trading ledger;

1. Inquiry with the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry in relation to the treatment of by-products;

1. The defendant 7, each on-site photograph, and each on-site photograph6)

1. Statement of the accused in the first protocol of trial;

1. Descriptions of each protocol of examination of police suspect against 3 dedicated to the dedicated unit and others;

1. Entry of the police statement on the defendant 6 in the statement;

1. Statement of the second police statement regarding the investigation agency; and

1. Certificates of slaughter inspection (O);

1. Inquiry with the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry in relation to the treatment of by-products;

1. A register of inspection for dismantling gold products;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes governing detailed inspection standards of livestock slaughtered and their meat;

1. Article relevant to the facts constituting an offense and the selection of punishment;

(a) Defendant 1: Each of Articles 45(1)7 and 33(1)8 of the Livestock Products Sanitary Control Act, Article 30 of the Criminal Act (the point of storage of livestock products after the expiration of the distribution period), Articles 45(2)11 and 31(2)6 of the Livestock Products Sanitary Control Act (the point of violation of the matters to be observed by a business operator), and the choice of imprisonment, respectively;

B. Defendant 2 and Defendant 3: Articles 45(1)7 and 33(1)8 of the respective Livestock Products Sanitary Control Act, and Article 30 of the Criminal Act. Defendants 4, 5, and 6: Articles 45(1)7 and 33(1)3 and 43(1)4 of the former Livestock Products Sanitary Control Act (Amended by Act No. 11690, Mar. 23, 2013); Article 30 of the Criminal Act

D. Defendant 7: Article 45(3)3 and Article 16 of the former Livestock Products Sanitary Control Act (Amended by Act No. 11690, Mar. 23, 2013); Article 30 of the Criminal Act (elective of Fines)

(e) Defendant 8 △△ Company: A violation under Articles 46, 45(3)3, and 16 of the former Livestock Products Sanitary Control Act (Amended by Act No. 11690, Mar. 23, 2013); Article 30 of the Criminal Act (the violation committed by Defendant 7); Articles 46, 45(1)7, and 33(1)3, and 45(1)4 of the former Livestock Products Sanitary Control Act (Amended by Act No. 11690, Mar. 23, 2013); Article 30 of the Criminal Act (the violation committed by Defendant 4, Defendant 6, and Defendant 5)

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Defendant 1, Defendant 2, Defendant 3, and Defendant 8: the former part of Article 37, Articles 38(1)2 and 50 of the Criminal Act

1. Detention in a workhouse;

Defendant 7: Articles 70 and 69(2) of the Criminal Act

1. Suspension of execution;

Defendant 1, Defendant 2, Defendant 5, and Defendant 6: Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (see, e.g., grounds for sentencing below)

1. Order of provisional payment;

Defendant 7 and Defendant 8’s subsidiaries: Determination on the assertion of Defendants 1, 2, and 3 of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and defense counsel

1. The assertion;

The Defendants did not sell products for which the circulation period has elapsed as stated in the facts constituting a crime in the judgment, and such sales are impossible in light of the quantity of materials purchased, the quantity of materials produced, etc.

2. Determination

According to the above evidence, the Defendants’ collusion to sell the products whose distribution period expired. In light of the quantity that the Defendants purchased from December 2012 to April 23, 2013 and the quantity that the Defendants purchased and kept before the purchase and the production size of the instant companies, it cannot be deemed impossible to sell the products as stated in the judgment. Accordingly, the Defendants’ and the defense counsel’s assertion cannot be accepted.

1. The grounds for sentencing; 1. The scope of recommended sentencing standards

A. Defendant 4

[Special Convictd Persons] 8]

[Determination of Punishment] Manufacture, etc. of Harmful Foods, Drugs, Cosmetics (Type 2).

[Decision of the Recommendation Area] One year and six months to Three years (Aggravated Area)

[Judgment of suspension of execution] Main reasons for writing: Where it is not revealed that hazards are not significant, there is no criminal record of suspension of execution or more.

B. Defendants 5 and 6

[Special Convicts]

[Determination of Punishment] Manufacture, etc. of Harmful Foods, Drugs, Cosmetics (Type 2).

[Decision of the Recommendation Area] One year and six months to Three years (Basic Area)

[Judgment of suspension of execution] Main reasons for major participation: Where it is not revealed that hazards are not significant, the main reasons for main participation shall not be subject to criminal punishment.

2. Determination of sentence;

A. Defendant 1, Defendant 2, and Defendant 3 are not less than the crime of this case, and the market price of the processed livestock products for which the circulation period has lapsed is approximately KRW 260 million,00,000). Defendant 3 is disadvantageously responsible for the crime of this case, and Defendant 1 is the first offender. Defendant 2 and Defendant 3 are favorable to the Defendants who do not have the previous crimes, and are favorable to the Defendants, taking into account other circumstances favorable to the Defendants, such as the defendants’ age, character and conduct, intelligence and environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, etc., as set forth in the arguments of this case, a sentence shall be imposed as ordered against the Defendants.

B. Defendant 4, Defendant 5, and Defendant 6 did not take such measures as discarding the livestock products showing symptoms in the selling company, even if they were to have sold them after taking such measures as destroying them, the Defendants did not properly control whether they were subject to disposal, etc. in the selling company, and Defendant 4 was mainly responsible for the instant crime, and Defendant 5 and Defendant 6 did not have any previous circumstances that are favorable to the Defendants, such as the primary offender, and other circumstances favorable to the Defendants, such as the age, character, character, intelligence and environment, motive, means and consequence of the instant crime, and the circumstances after the crime, etc., within the scope of the recommended sentence of sentencing, by taking into account the sentencing factors indicated in the instant arguments, such as the Defendant’s age, character and behavior, character and environment, and environment, the motive and circumstances of the instant crime, as well as the circumstances that are favorable to the Defendant, the motive and circumstances of the Defendant’s first sentence of the instant punishment, as stated in the sentencing guidelines, etc.

라. 피고인8 △▲회사 이 사건 범행 기간이 짧지 않고, 판매한 양도 적지 아니한 점 등 이 사건 변론에 나타난 양형사유들을 참작하여 법정형의 범위 내에서 피고인에게 주문과 같이 형을 선고한다.

Judges Jinwon

1) Reference to investigation records No. 2020 to 2022

2) Reference to investigation records No. 1974

3) Reference to Articles 42, 210 of the Investigation Records

4) Reference to investigation records No. 169, 170 pages, etc.

5) Reference to investigation records No. 215 pages, etc.

6) See Articles 735, 750 of the Investigation Records

7) Defendants 1, 2, 3, and 7 are not subject to the sentencing guidelines.

8) The total market price of a mixture of chickenss without symptoms and symptoms in facts constituting an offense in the judgment is 127,864,150 won, and the prosecution is the prosecution.

The evidence presented alone is insufficient to recognize the fact that only the catus with symptoms exceeds the market price of 100 million won among the market price, and otherwise this is different.

shall not apply to a person under way, as there is no evidence to acknowledge the same.

9) A person under way shall not be applied for the same reasons as each week 6).

10) The market value of 1,318,772,00 won, which is a criminal sale amount as indicated in the holding, includes food for which the circulation period has not elapsed, and the circulation period has expired.

Food ratio is 20% of the total sales amount, which is 263,754,400 won (=1,318,772,000 x 0.2).