[1] The method of determining whether the act of selling and marking the relevant beef as the country of origin is in violation of the provision on the indication of origin where a cattle born in the Republic of Korea was slaughtered in an area other than the place of birth

[2] In the absence of a separate provision as to the criteria for determining the origin of agricultural products moved from the place of birth or breeding to a specific area for domestic acid slaughter, the standard for determining whether such act is deemed as simple preparation for slaughter or raising, in the event that feed, etc. were slaughtered in a specific area for a certain period without being slaughtered on the date of movement

[3] In a case where the Defendants were indicted for violating the provision on the indication of origin under the former Agricultural Products Quality Control Act by purchasing and selling the cattle produced in another area than the Gangwon-do Crossing-gun, and marked the “brupted rain” after slaughter, the case holding that the judgment below which found the Defendants guilty on the ground that all the cases where the period until the time of slaughter is less than two months after moving the cattle not born and raised in the Crossing-gun area to the Crossing-gun area constituted an act of preparation for slaughter or simple storage

[1] Article 2 subparag. 1 and subparag. 6, Article 15(1) and (3), Article 17(1)1, Article 34-2, and Article 37 of the former Agricultural Products Quality Control Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 21805, Nov. 2, 2009; hereinafter “Enforcement Decree”), even if a lawsuit for raising agricultural products is based on the contents and structure of Article 2 subparag. 1 and subparag. 1, Article 25(1)1 of the former Agricultural Products Quality Control Act (amended by Act No. 9667, May 8, 2009; hereinafter “Act”), if a lawsuit for raising agricultural products is indicated in a short-term manner to increase the quality of agricultural products through the appropriate quality control of agricultural products and thus, it is difficult to interpret the pertinent provision to the extent that the pertinent act of raising livestock products was conducted with the indication of the name of a specific Si/Do or name of a Si/Gun/Gu to a certain extent unfavorable to the Defendant, or to the extent that it is not likely to be domestically or domestically exploited.

[2] In a case where a person slaughters feed, etc. in a specific area for a certain period without slaughter on the date of movement for the reason of recovery or adjustment of the time of slaughter, etc., even though the person moved from the place of birth or breeding to a specific area for the purpose of slaughter in Korea at the time of committing the crime, whether such act is deemed merely an act of preparation for slaughter or that it is an act of simple preparation for slaughter. As to whether it is deemed an act of preparation for slaughter, the type, age, health condition, the period after movement, the period from the time of slaughter to the time of slaughter, the form of the place where the person drinks and stays to the relevant cattle after movement, the type and method of the feed used to drink and stay in the relevant cattle, and whether the body changes, etc., shall be reasonably determined according to individual cases. On the contrary, the determination of whether the person violated the rules of origin

[3] In a case where the Defendants were indicted for violating the provision on the indication of origin under the former Agricultural Products Quality Control Act (amended by Act No. 9667 of May 8, 2009; hereinafter “the Act”), by purchasing and selling cattle produced in an area other than the Gangwon-do Crossing-gun area with the indication of origin, the case holding that the lower court determined that the Defendants’ act of selling the cattle born or raised in an area other than the Crossing-gun with the indication of origin clearly constitutes a violation of the provision on the indication of origin, on the contrary, although the Defendants moved to the Crossing-gun area to the Crossing-gun area for slaughter but did not slaughter for 1,2, or more than 1,2 months, and then slaughtered feed to the said area, the period until the time of mooring, the shape of the place where the cattle was slaughtered, and the method of providing the feed to the said area after moving, and the method of offering the cattle to the area where the cattle was located, and it did not reach the specific period of preparation or alteration in the area where the cattle was not prepared.

[1] Article 1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Agricultural and Fishery Products Act (amended by Act No. 967 of May 8, 209), Article 2 subparag. 1 (see current Article 2 subparag. 1 of the Agricultural and Fishery Products Quality Control Act), Article 6 (see current Article 2 subparag. 4), Article 15(1) and (3) (see current Article 5 of the Agricultural and Fishery Products Quality Control Act) of the Act on Origin Labeling of Agricultural and Fishery Products (see current Article 5 of the Act on Origin Labeling of Agricultural and Fishery Products), Article 17(1)1 and 3 (see current Article 5 of the Agricultural and Fishery Products Labeling of Agricultural and Fishery Products) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Agricultural and Fishery Products Act (amended by Act No. 1067 of May 1, 200), Article 2 subparag. 1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Agricultural and Fishery Products Quality Control Act (see current Article 1 of the Agricultural and Fishery Products Quality Control Act), Article 5 of the Agricultural and Fishery Products Act (see current Article 2 of the Agricultural and Fishery Products Labeling Act)

[1] Supreme Court Decision 2009Do3053 Decided December 10, 2009 (Gong2010Sang, 180), Supreme Court Decision 2009Do13435 Decided April 29, 2010, Supreme Court Decision 2007Do3681 Decided September 9, 2010 (Gong2010Ha, 1937)

Defendant 1 and 10 others

Defendant 1 and three others and the Prosecutor

Attorneys Son Ji-yol et al.

Chuncheon District Court Decision 2011No227 Decided February 22, 2012

The part of the judgment of the court below against the defendant 1, 2, 9, and 111 is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Chuncheon District Court Panel Division. The remainder of the prosecutor's remaining appeals are all dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the grounds of appeal by Defendant 1, 2, 9, and 11 by agricultural cooperatives

A. (1) Article 2 of the former Agricultural Products Quality Control Act (amended by Act No. 9667 of May 8, 2009, hereinafter referred to as the "Act") provides that "agricultural products" in subparagraph 1 refers to unprocessed agricultural products, forest products (excluding stone and aggregate), livestock products, and other matters prescribed by the Presidential Decree," and subparagraph 6 of Article 15 of the Act provides that "the term "place of origin" means the country or area where agricultural products are produced or collected, and Article 15 (1) of the Act provides that "the Minister of Food, Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries shall, if necessary for the establishment of distribution order, require the seller or processing of agricultural products and processed agricultural products to indicate their place of origin." Paragraph (3) provides that "the items, methods of indication, criteria for determining the place of origin, etc. under the provisions of paragraph (1) shall be prescribed by the Presidential Decree."

Article 24(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Agricultural Products Quality Control Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 21805, Nov. 2, 2009; hereinafter “Enforcement Decree”) provides that “in the case of domestic agricultural products, etc., the name of a Special Metropolitan City, Metropolitan City, Do (hereinafter “City/Do”) or Si/Gun/autonomous Gu (hereinafter “Si/Gun/Gu”) that produces domestic products, etc. shall be indicated in subparagraph 1, and Article 25(1) of the Enforcement Decree provides that “The criteria for determining the origin of domestic agricultural products, etc. under Article 15(3) of the Act shall be as follows:

Meanwhile, Articles 34-2 and 17(1)1 and 3 of the Act provide that a person who sells agricultural products subject to the indication of origin shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than 7 years or a fine not exceeding 100 million won, or both of them shall be punished by a fine, or both of them, if the representative of a corporation commits a violation under Article 34-2 of the Act in connection with the business of the corporation, not only shall the violator be punished, but also the corporation shall be punished.

(2) In general, in the case of agricultural products and forestry products, such as land or plants annexed thereto, unless they are transplanted from the original place to another area prior to harvest or gathering, there is no particular difficulty in viewing the place of harvest or gathering as the origin of the relevant agricultural products and forest products. However, in the case of agricultural products such as livestock products such as meat, etc. of movable livestock, and meat, etc. raised as agricultural products recognized as agricultural products under Article 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the said Act, such conclusion may vary depending on which elements of birth, breeding, or slaughter should be considered in determining their origin.

(3) First of all, considering the aforementioned relevant laws and regulations and the legislative purpose of the Act to contribute to the increase of farmers' income and the protection of consumers by enhancing the commercial quality of agricultural products and encouraging fair trade through the appropriate quality control of agricultural products, if the relevant lawsuit is indicated as the origin of a certain city/Do name or Si/Gun/Gu name on the domestic beef and selling them at the same time, while indicating the name of a specific city/Do or Si/Gun/Gu name in the country where the relevant lawsuit was born, raised, or slaughtered, was immediately slaughtered for only the purpose of slaughter after only the slaughter was moved to the slaughter place after the completion of the relevant area, if the slaughter place was indicated as the origin of the slaughter place, such act shall be construed as falling under the “an act of falsely indicating the country of origin or misleading the country of origin” as stipulated in Article 34-2 and Article 17(1)1 and 3 of the Act.

Meanwhile, penal provisions should be strictly interpreted and applied in accordance with their language and text, and they should not be excessively interpreted or analogically interpreted in the direction unfavorable to the defendant (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2009Do3053, Dec. 10, 2009; 2009Do13435, Apr. 29, 2010). If a lawsuit born in the Republic of Korea is slaughtered while being raised in an area other than the place where the lawsuit was born in that area, then the lawsuit can only be identified as the place of origin when the lawsuit was raised in that area for a certain period, unless there are any provisions in the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes as to whether it can be identified as the place of origin only when the case was raised in that area for a certain period, even if the name of the relevant City/Do or Si/Gun/Gu was indicated as the place of origin in a specific area, it cannot be readily concluded that the case constitutes a violation of

However, Article 25(4) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Agricultural Products Quality Control Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 21805, Nov. 2, 2009; Presidential Decree No. 21805, Nov. 2, 2009; Presidential Decree No. 21805, Jan. 2, 2009; and Article 25(4) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Agricultural Products Quality Control Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 21805) provides that "where agricultural products under paragraph (1) 1 are difficult to be determined and determined due to transplant, movement, etc., the detailed criteria for determining origin shall be determined and publicly notified by the Minister for Food, Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries." However, the Minister for Food, Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries failed to separately announce the criteria for determining origin of agricultural products under Act No. 10022, Feb. 4, 2010; and Article 5(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act.

As above, in a case where a person slaughters feed in a specific area without slaughter on the date of movement for reasons such as recovery of the body reduced in the course of movement or adjustment of the time of slaughter, etc., as long as there was no separate provision in the Acts and subordinate statutes related to the indication of origin at the time of the crime of this case, it shall be reasonably determined based on individual cases, in full view of the type and age of the relevant cattle, health condition, the period from the time of movement to the time of slaughter, the type and method of the feed that the person drinks and stays in the relevant cattle after movement, the type of the relevant cattle, the type and method of providing the feed, and the degree of the material change in body, etc., and the period from the time of movement to the time of slaughter cannot be determined uniformly by establishing the rules on the indication of origin.

B. The lower court: (a) established the standards under which Defendant 1, 2, and 9, an executive officer or employee of the agricultural cooperative, can indicate the relevant area as the breeding place of cattle in a specific area only in the case where at least two months of money in light of the distribution process and legal purport, cooking, etc. of cattle in Korea; and (b) purchased the cattle born, raised, or shipped in another area than the Gangwon-do Crossing-gun area and moved to the crossing-gun area from that time to the point of view; and (c) on the premise that, if the period from that time to the time the cattle slaughtered is less than two months, the act of simple storage shall be deemed to have been performed; and (d) on the basis that the said Defendants’ act of selling the cattle, on which the period from the time when the cattle slaughtered was moved to the Crossing-gun area to the point of view of being slaughtered, indicating it as the “chill-gun” as prescribed by the Act.

According to the above legal principles, among the criminal facts found guilty by the court below, the act of the above defendants' moving the cattle born and raised in other areas than the Crossing-gun to the "○○ Enterprise" located in the original city (hereinafter omitted) and slaughtered it on the day of their movement, and selling the beef clearly constitutes a violation of the rules on origin labeling of this case.

However, according to the reasoning of the judgment below, since the court below convicted the Defendants of the charges, other than the portion of the cattle born or raised in the 00-gun area as "brupted 2", it is evident that there are cases where the livestock farmers in the 0-Gun area with no slaughter on the date of movement sell feed for not less than 1,2 months from the 1, 2-month area without slaughter. In such cases, the court below determined that the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the size of the cattle to be slaughtered within the 3-month area, including the period until the time of slaughter, the type and method of the feed supplied to the cattle after moving, and the number of the cattle to be slaughtered, and the number of the cattle to be slaughtered within the 4-month area, and thus, it can be viewed that there was no possibility of an error within the 2-month area to uniformly calculate the size of the cattle to be slaughtered within the 3-month area without reaching the 3-month area. Thus, the court below erred in its determination that the remaining more than 13-month area.

Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the remaining grounds of appeal by the above Defendants, the appeal on each of the convictions against the above Defendants is with merit.

2. As to the Prosecutor’s Grounds of Appeal

A. As to the defendant 1, 2, 9, and 11

The grounds of appeal by the prosecutor against the above defendants are premised on the fact that the plaintiff, who moved to a specific area for slaughter in relation to the provision on the indication of origin under the Act, drinks feed in that area and the machine period for more than two months recognized by the court below, should constitute a violation of the provision on the indication of origin, but this is not acceptable in light of the above legal principles. The grounds of appeal by the prosecutor related to this are without merit.

B. As to the remaining Defendants

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below maintained the judgment of the court of first instance that acquitted the remaining Defendants on each of the charges of this case on the grounds of its stated reasoning, including that there is no proof that the remaining Defendants, who are the head of direct trade sales team of the agricultural cooperative 11,

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the aforementioned legal principles and records, the part of the judgment below's arbitrary determination that determined the standard that the act of indicating the place of slaughter at a certain area other than the place of birth or breeding when a lawsuit born at the time of the judgment below was slaughtered in a certain area other than the place of birth or breeding but the period from the time of movement to a certain area other than the place of slaughter does not reach two months was in violation of the provision on the indication of origin. However, as long as the judgment of the court below and the conclusion of the judgment are justified, the above error of the judgment below did not affect the conclusion of the judgment, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there were no

3. Scope of reversal

As seen earlier, among the judgment below, the guilty portion against the above Defendants 1, 2, 9, and 11 of the judgment below is unlawful, so it cannot be exempted from reversal. Since the part which the court below acquitted the above Defendants of each of the facts charged in this case against the above Defendants is in the relation of a single comprehensive crime with each of the facts charged. Thus, the part of the judgment of the court below as to the above Defendants should be reversed

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below against the defendant 1, 2, 9, and 11 is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. The prosecutor's remaining defendants are all dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Min Il-young (Presiding Justice)