logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 춘천지방법원 원주지원 2017.08.30 2016고정437
축산물위생관리법위반
Text

Defendant

A shall be punished by a fine for negligence of KRW 1,000,000 and by a fine of KRW 500,000.

Defendant

A above.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

Defendant

A is the team leader of the 'H store' (monthly sales 400 million) livestock 'H store' located in G at the prime city of the prime city, and the defendant corporation B is a corporation.

No livestock product, the distribution deadline indicated on which has passed shall be sold, nor processed, packaged, used, imported, stored, transported or displayed for sale.

Defendant

A The circulation period from July 12, 2016 to the Sea-dong room in the H Burial Livestock Copi, Ltd. on September 12, 2016, while keeping the domestic milch cattle from the LOB business.

8. 8.86 g, distribution deadline from July 13, 2016 to 25.

8. The same year from July 12, 2016 to July 12, 2016.

9. up to September 2, 200.58kg and total amount of 40.76kg for sale. Defendant B had Defendant A, at the same time and place as above, commit the above-mentioned act of violation.

Summary of Evidence

1. The defendant A's partial statement

1. A protocol concerning the examination of a suspect of the police officer regarding I;

1. Statement made by the police to J;

1. A protocol of seizure and a list of seizure;

1. A certificate of completion of report and a certificate of business report;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on control field photographs;

1. Relevant Article of the Act and the choice of punishment for the crime;

A. Defendant A: Article 45(1)7 and Article 33(1)8 of the Sanitary Control of Livestock Products Act; selection of fines

(b) Defendant B: Articles 46, 45(1)7, and 33(1)8 of the Sanitary Control of Livestock Products Act

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act on the confinement of a workhouse (Defendant A);

1. Determination as to the assertion by the Defendant and the defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The Defendant did not know that the distribution period has elapsed at the time of moving the instant scrap to the Navy, and disposed of the product at the time of moving the scrap to the Navy, and the distribution period has elapsed at the time of moving the scrap from the Navy. Thus, the Defendant’s intent was to sell the product at the time of the instant detection.

arrow