beta
Text
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal shows that the Defendant had consumers mistake the instant non-entry into the Republic of Korea, and even if the Defendants’ entry into the Republic of Korea does not constitute the entry prior to food additives, if the country of origin is indicated, the Defendants must comply with the standards for indication and the method of indication in accordance with the Act on Origin Labeling of Agricultural and Fishery Products and the Enforcement Decree. Thus, the Defendant’s marking as “rice (not................) may be deemed to violate the obligation not to indicate that the country of origin might cause confusion. However, the lower court, without determining this part of the Prosecutor’s assertion, acquitted the Defendant of the instant facts charged, without having determined this part, erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, or failing to deliberate, thereby affecting the conclusion
2. Determination
A. The gist of the facts charged is that the Defendant is the representative director of “D Co., Ltd.” that produces galms, etc. in the former North-U.S.-gun C.
No person who sells or provides agricultural and fishery products or the processed products thereof after cooking shall place a false indication of the place of origin or place a mark likely to cause confusion therewith.
Nevertheless, from August 2015 to August 2016, the Defendant manufactured the above “E” so-called “D Co., Ltd. Co., Ltd.” by using entry non-entry fluories and fluories. In fact, even though he manufactured by using the non-entry fluoration of imported acid and the fluoration of domestic acid, the Defendant indicated the “rice (Non-entry fluorus-U.S.)” on the product labeling as if both the entry fluor and fluoration fluor were domestically produced, and sold the said so-called 52 million won in total by falsely marking the origin as if both the non-entry fluor were domestically produced (4,00 disease for general consumers x 1,000 x 1,000 x 13 months).
B. The lower court’s judgment comprehensively takes account of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the record.