208 Highest 2756 Violation of the Agricultural Product Quality Control Act

Defendant

Housing Incheon Yeonsu-gu (hereinafter referred to as "Housing Yeonsu-gu")

Incheon Reinforcement Group in Reference domicile (hereinafter referred to as "building")

nan

Law Firm

Attorney in charge

August 22, 2008

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than six months.

Facts of crime

From January 2007 to Incheon Seo-gu (hereinafter omitted), the defendant is operating '○ Food' from around January 2007, and on April 3, 2008, the defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of 2 months for a violation of the Agricultural Product Quality Control Act at the Incheon District Court on April 3, 2008.

1. The Defendant sold from October 18, 2007 to March 21, 2008 the above ○○ Food “○○○” to 143.65 kilograms, and sold the country of origin under a disguised manner with domestic friendship.

2. On March 21, 2008, at the same place, the Defendant sold 4.5 kilograms of Australia, 5 kilograms of 4.5 kilograms of milch chron and 1.2 kilograms of milch milch chron 1.2 kilograms of Australia and 1.2 kilograms of 1.2 kilograms of Australia and 1.2 kilograms of U.S., etc., for the purpose of sale in a disguised manner of origin, and at the display place air conditioning room, the Defendant placed an indication at the display place that could cause confusion as to the country of origin by gathering one franite of Australia and one franite of milch chron flus of Australia and one flus of domestic mil mil chron flus of Australia.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Examination protocol of the accused by prosecution;

1. A statement of detection, photograph, investigation report (17 pages of evidence records), and a statement of transactions;

1. Investigation report (Binding of court rulings);

Application of Statutes

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

Article 34-2 subparagraphs 1 and 3 of Article 17-2 of the former Agricultural Products Quality Control Act (Act No. 8103)

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

The reasons for sentencing under the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act have been as follows: (a) the Defendant, from Jan. 2, 2007 to Oct. 5, 2007, putting up the imported swine scrapers and scrapers on the part of the competent authorities around Oct. 2007, and continued to commit the crime against those who are not capable of distinguishing the country of origin by deceiving the country of origin of the scrapers as stated in its reasoning.

In light of the circumstances of the small amount of money that has caused social confusion due to the fear of the people about food, the act of deceiving the country of origin is highly necessary to be punished strictly. Even if it is controlled by false country of origin labeling, even if it is paid only a fine of less than the profits acquired thereby, the defendant cannot be sentenced to the punishment even if it is against the wrong perception that only the fine is paid if it is paid in comparison with the profits acquired thereby (the defendant submitted the certificate of fact immediately before the judgment of this case was issued, but it seems that it is merely a temporary measure to avoid a serious punishment).

Judges