logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2014.11.27 2014노2998
농수산물의원산지표시에관한법률위반
Text

The judgment below

Of the defendants A, the part of the defendant is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,000,000.

The defendant above.

Reasons

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

In a thorough examination of the situation at the time of the instant crime, the lower court erred by misapprehending the fact and thereby acquitted the Defendant, even though the Defendant knew that the rice was domestically produced, when he moved the rice to the rice pole on which domestic acid was marked.

Judgment

The Defendant in this part of the facts charged is the wife of H who runs the grain sales business in the name of “G” from the Seoul Jung-gu F and the first floor of Seoul, and is an employee of the above grain sales store, and the J is a worker in daily work as H’s high-speed friend.

No one shall sell agricultural and fishery products or the processed products thereof with the country of origin disguised, sell such products mixed with other agricultural and fishery products or the processed products thereof, or store or display such products for sale.

Nevertheless, the Defendant conspired with H and I to change the origin of the Chinese rice into the domestic origin.

On April 4, 2013, Defendant A, along with H and J, purchased 50 kgs of domestic rice in the above G, opened a package in which 20kgs of Chinese rice were 50 kg in the rubber box, and then applied 3 kgs in a small rubber box by weighing 3 kgs in a string, and attached a domestic blicker.

Accordingly, in collusion with H and J, the Defendant made 199 kgs of rice that disguised the country of origin in Korea and kept them for the purpose of sale to L.

The lower court rendered a judgment that acquitted the Defendant on the ground that the police interrogation protocol and the protocol of interrogation of suspect H prepared by a judicial police officer was inadmissible, and that the statement of the lower court by M as a crackdown police officer alone was insufficient to acknowledge this part of the charges, and that there was no other evidence to acknowledge this differently.

당심의 판단 원심이 적법하게 채택하여 조사한 증거들에 이 사건 범행 현장에서 압수된 중국산 쌀 20kg 들이 ’福臨門‘ 포대에 대한...

arrow