logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원 2014.05.02 2014노481
식품위생법위반
Text

Defendant

All appeals filed by A and prosecutor are dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of the grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A purchased red ginseng headquarters in manufacturing “E” and mixed it in compliance with the ingredient indication. The purchased red ginseng headquarters’s ingredients were different from the actual ones. The instant “F” product was made by Defendant G, the factory site, without mixing the actual water production ginseng. Thus, Defendant A’s error as to the fact that there was another indication different from the ingredients of the said product.

B. In light of the fact that the prosecutor (as to the defendant G), the defendant G had a comprehensive authority over the factory operation, and the direct mixing of the horse strins which are not indicated as a raw material, etc., the defendant G may be found guilty of the facts charged against the defendant G.

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances acknowledged by the judgment of the court below and the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below as to the defendant A's assertion, namely, that 0.02% and 0.00% (which mean that spoin ingredients may be detected below 0.02% or less than 0.0%) respectively, and that the defendant A indicated the ingredients of the "E" product as indicated in the purchase red ginseng, but the defendant did not submit the materials up to the trial. However, the defendant, who was responsible for the production and indication of the product, was unable to believe the defendant's assertion, such as the production of the product and the verification of the ingredients of the red ginseng ginseng, was confirmed as suitable for the manufacture of the product, and it was difficult to raise an objection against the purchaser if there is a problem. The defendant G made a mixture of the raw materials in accordance with the direction of the defendant A while manufacturing the "F," and there was no omission of some of the raw materials from the defendant A, but there was no omission of the product's statement from the defendant A.

arrow