Open Decision Ledger · Criminal law
Feed Management Act penalty provisions reach only the manufacturer, importer or seller
Supreme Court, Feb. 12, 2026, 2025Do5923 (judgment)
Case name: 사료관리법위반[사료관리법상 벌칙 규정의 적용 대상 및 양벌규정의 적용 여부가 문제된 사건]
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Are the penalty provisions in Article 34(vii), Article 13(1), Article 33(i) and Article 14(1)(ii) of the Feed Management Act confined to the manufacturer, importer or seller defined in Article 2(vii), (viii) and (ix) of that Act, and does Article 35 serve as the basis for punishing a person who actually conducts such business but is not one of them?
Holding
Yes, they are so confined. Article 35 is a supplementary punishment provision whose purpose is to extend the persons subject to the penalty provisions, so as to secure their effectiveness, to a person who actually conducts the business of a manufacturer, importer or seller without being one, and it becomes the basis for punishing that person. For the penalty provisions, a 'manufacturer' means, irrespective of whether the manufacturing business is registered under Article 8, the business owner who carries on the business of manufacturing feed for sale or supply and to whom the rights and obligations arising from that business are attributed; employees and agents of the owner are not included.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
사료관리법 제34조 제7호, 제13조 제1항 및 같은 법 제33조 제1호, 제14조 제1항 제2호에 각각 정하여진 벌칙 규정(이하 ‘각 벌칙 규정’이라 한다)의 적용 대상은 같은 법 제2조 제7호, 제8호, 제9호에서 정한 ‘제조업자·수입업자 또는 판매업자’로 한정된다.
Unofficial English translation
The scope of application of the penal provisions respectively provided in Article 34, subparagraph 7 and Article 13, paragraph (1) of the Control of Livestock and Fish Feeds Act, and in Article 33, subparagraph 1 and Article 14, paragraph (1), subparagraph 2 of the same Act (hereinafter 'the respective penal provisions') is limited to the 'manufacturer, importer or seller' provided in Article 2, subparagraphs 7, 8 and 9 of the same Act.
Disposition
Dismissed Stated in the decision
상고를 기각한다.
Unofficial English translation
The appeal is dismissed.
Form of the test
Elements stated Stated in the decision
‘제조업자’란 사료관리법 제8조에 따른 제조업의 등록 유무와 관계없이 사료를 제조하여 판매 또는 공급하는 업을 영위하는 자로서 그 제조업으로 인한 권리의무의 귀속주체가 되는 사업주를 의미하고, 사업주의 직원이나 대리인 등은 ‘제조업자’에 포함되지 않는다.
Unofficial English translation
'Manufacturer' means a person who operates a business of manufacturing feed for sale or supply, regardless of whether the manufacturing business is registered pursuant to Article 8 of the Control of Livestock and Fish Feeds Act, and who is the business owner to whom rights and obligations attributable to that manufacturing business are attributed; and an employee, agent, etc. of the business owner is not included in 'manufacturer'.
Factors
- 각 벌칙 규정이 적용되는 제조업자·수입업자 또는 판매업자가 아니면서 그러한 업무를 실제로 집행하는 자가 있을 때
- 각 벌칙 규정의 실효성을 확보하기 위하여 적용 대상자를 해당 업무를 실제로 집행하는 자까지 확장하여 그 행위자도 아울러 처벌하려는 데 있다
- 사료관리법 제8조에 따른 제조업의 등록 유무와 관계없이
- 그 제조업으로 인한 권리의무의 귀속주체가 되는 사업주를 의미하고, 사업주의 직원이나 대리인 등은 ‘제조업자’에 포함되지 않는다
Unofficial English translation
• Where there is a person who is not a manufacturer, importer or seller to whom the respective penal provisions apply but who actually performs such work
• It is intended to extend the scope of persons subject to application to persons who actually perform such work in order to secure the effectiveness of the respective penal provisions, and to punish such actor as well
• regardless of whether the manufacturing business is registered pursuant to Article 8 of the Control of Livestock and Fish Feeds Act,
• means the business owner who is the subject to whom rights and obligations attributable to that manufacturing business are attributed, and an employee, agent, etc. of the business owner is not included in 'manufacturer'
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 2017. 11. 14. 선고 2017도7492 판결(공2017하, 2413)
Unofficial English translation
Supreme Court Decision 2017Do7492 decided November 14, 2017 (Gong 2017 Ha, 2413)
Decisions referred to
[1] 대법원 2017. 11. 14. 선고 2017도7492 판결(공2017하, 2413)
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
Where the court below omits the supplementary punishment provision and applies only the penalty provisions, what difference in the applicable law provisions or in the statutory sentence would turn that omission into an error affecting the judgment?
A later decision holding that the omission of a supplementary punishment provision such as Article 35 is an error affecting the judgment, even where the statutory sentence is the same, would require this entry to be read again. Any amendment to Article 35 or to the definition of manufacturer in Article 2(v) and (vii) of the Feed Management Act would have the same effect.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
7 of 8 axes matched GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI, codex CLI) · 2026-10-24
A reader from another model family (GPT-6 Astra), given the official text but not the primary reading, agreed on 7 of the 8 axes; the readings differed on axis 8 (open question and revisit condition).
Axis 8 (Open question and revisit condition): Primary “Where the court below omits the supplementary punishment provision and applies only the penalty provisions, what difference in the applicable law provisions or in the statutory sentence would turn that omission into an error affecting the judgment?” vs Independent “How should the business owner be identified when contractual ownership and actual control of feed manufacturing are divided between different persons?”
The primary reading asks how an omitted supplementary punishment provision would affect the judgment, whereas the independent reading asks how to identify the business owner when ownership and actual control are split.
사료관리법 제34조 제7호, 제13조 제1항 및 같은 법 제33조 제1호, 제14조 제1항 제2호에 각각 정하여진 벌칙 규정(이하 ‘각 벌칙 규정’이라 한다)의 적용 대상은 같은 법 제2조 제7호, 제8호, 제9호에서 정한 ‘제조업자·수입업자 또는 판매업자’로 한정된다.Raw responses and comparison record: Protocol · Blind readings (JSONL) · Axis comparison (JSONL) · SHA-256 (JSON)
Lower-court contrast & scope of application
Lower-court reading vs. Supreme Court holding
Lower-court context: The Jeju District Court, in its judgment of 10 April 2025 (2024No927), left undisturbed the first-instance judgment convicting the defendant, which had treated him as a 'manufacturer' falling within the penalty provisions and had applied only those provisions to the acts charged.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court held that the court below had misread the law on the targets of the penalty provisions and on the supplementary punishment provision, and had failed to apply Article 35(1) while leaving the penalty provisions alone. It nevertheless found that the defendant was plainly an 'actor' punishable under Article 35(1) given his position in the Jeju Fisheries Aquaculture Productive Cooperative Association and the content and scope of his authority, that the same criminal facts were established, and that the applicable law provisions and his statutory sentence were identical, so the error had no effect on the judgment; the Justices unanimously dismissed the appeal.
Distinguishing conditions
- A business owner who carries on the business of manufacturing feed for sale or supply, since such a person is a 'manufacturer' directly subject to the penalty provisions and does not need Article 35 to be punished.
- An importer or seller within Article 2(viii) or (ix), since the Court defined only the meaning of 'manufacturer' and left the meanings of the other two untouched.
- A case in which the omission of the supplementary punishment provision altered the applicable law provisions or the statutory sentence, since the Court found the error harmless only after also finding the defendant plainly an 'actor' under Article 35(1) and the criminal facts identical, in addition to the identical applicable law provisions and statutory sentence.
Record verification notes
First fix the defendant's position in the entity, the authority given to him and whether he was the business owner to whom the rights and obligations of the manufacturing business were attributed, since that decides whether he is a 'manufacturer' or an 'actor'. Then compare below and above on the applicable law provisions and the statutory sentence, because the Court dismissed the appeal only after finding them identical. The Court defined only 'manufacturer', so an importer or seller needs its own analysis.
From the official text
Points at issue
[1] 사료관리법 제34조 제7호, 제13조 제1항 및 같은 법 제33조 제1호, 제14조 제1항 제2호에 각각 정하여진 벌칙 규정의 적용 대상이 같은 법 제2조 제7호, 제8호, 제9호에서 정한 ‘제조업자·수입업자 또는 판매업자’로 한정되는지 여부(적극) / 사료관리법 제35조 양벌규정의 취지 및 위 양벌규정이 제조업자·수입업자 또는 판매업자가 아니면서 그러한 업무를 실제로 집행하는 자에 대한 처벌의 근거 규정이 되는지 여부(적극) [2] 사료관리법 제34조 제7호, 제13조 제1항 및 같은 법 제33조 제1호, 제14조 제1항 제2호에 각각 정하여진 벌칙 규정의 적용 대상인 ‘제조업자’의 의미(=제조업의 등록 유무와 관계없이 사료를 제조하여 판매 또는 공급하는 업을 영위하는 자로서 그 제조업으로 인한 권리의무의 귀속주체가 되는 사업주) 및 사업주의 직원이나 대리인 등도 이에 포함되는지 여부(소극)
Unofficial English translation
[1] Whether the scope of application of the penal provisions respectively provided in Article 34, subparagraph 7 and Article 13, paragraph (1) of the Control of Livestock and Fish Feeds Act, and in Article 33, subparagraph 1 and Article 14, paragraph (1), subparagraph 2 of the same Act, is limited to the 'manufacturer, importer or seller' provided in Article 2, subparagraphs 7, 8 and 9 of the same Act (affirmative) / The purport of the joint penalty provision of Article 35 of the Control of Livestock and Fish Feeds Act, and whether the said joint penalty provision constitutes the basis provision for punishing a person who is not a manufacturer, importer or seller but who actually performs such work (affirmative) [2] The meaning of 'manufacturer', which is a subject of application of the penal provisions respectively provided in Article 34, subparagraph 7 and Article 13, paragraph (1) of the Control of Livestock and Fish Feeds Act and in Article 33, subparagraph 1 and Article 14, paragraph (1), subparagraph 2 of the same Act (= a person who operates a business of manufacturing feed for sale or supply, regardless of whether the manufacturing business is registered, and who is the business owner to whom rights and obligations attributable to that manufacturing business are attributed) and whether an employee or agent of the business owner, etc. is also included therein (negative)
Summary of the holding
[1] 사료관리법 제34조 제7호, 제13조 제1항 및 같은 법 제33조 제1호, 제14조 제1항 제2호에 각각 정하여진 벌칙 규정(이하 ‘각 벌칙 규정’이라 한다)의 적용 대상은 같은 법 제2조 제7호, 제8호, 제9호에서 정한 ‘제조업자·수입업자 또는 판매업자’로 한정된다. 한편 사료관리법 제35조는 법인의 대표자나 법인 또는 개인의 대리인, 사용인, 그 밖의 종업원이 그 법인 또는 개인의 업무에 관하여 제33조 또는 제34조의 위반행위를 하면 그 행위자를 벌할 뿐만 아니라 그 법인 또는 개인에게도 해당 조문의 벌금형을 과하도록 양벌규정을 두고 있다. 이 규정의 취지는, 각 벌칙 규정이 적용되는 제조업자·수입업자 또는 판매업자가 아니면서 그러한 업무를 실제로 집행하는 자가 있을 때, 각 벌칙 규정의 실효성을 확보하기 위하여 적용 대상자를 해당 업무를 실제로 집행하는 자까지 확장하여 그 행위자도 아울러 처벌하려는 데 있다. 이러한 양벌규정은 해당 업무를 실제로 집행하는 자에 대한 처벌의 근거 규정이 된다. [2] 사료관리법 제2조 제5호는 "제조업"이란 ‘사료를 제조(혼합·배합·화합 또는 가공하는 경우를 포함한다. 이하 같다)하여 판매 또는 공급하는 업을 말한다.’고 규정하고 있고, 같은 조 제7호는 "제조업자"란 ‘제조업을 영위하는 자를 말한다.’고 규정하고 있다. 따라서 사료관리법 제34조 제7호, 제13조 제1항 및 같은 법 제33조 제1호, 제14조 제1항 제2호에 각각 정하여진 벌칙 규정의 적용 대상인 ‘제조업자’란 사료관리법 제8조에 따른 제조업의 등록 유무와 관계없이 사료를 제조하여 판매 또는 공급하는 업을 영위하는 자로서 그 제조업으로 인한 권리의무의 귀속주체가 되는 사업주를 의미하고, 사업주의 직원이나 대리인 등은 ‘제조업자’에 포함되지 않는다.
Order
상고를 기각한다.
Unofficial English translation
The appeal is dismissed.
Provisions referred to
[1] 사료관리법 제2조 제7호, 제8호, 제9호, 제13조 제1항, 제14조 제1항 제2호, 제33조 제1호, 제34조 제7호, 제35조 / [2] 사료관리법 제2조 제5호, 제7호, 제8조, 제13조 제1항, 제14조 제1항 제2호, 제33조 제1호, 제34조 제7호
Read 2026-10-24 · Cross-read 2026-10-24. All quotes matched against the official text. The Chinese-character placeholders the court used for anonymised parties are given in their Korean readings, and parenthetical Chinese-character glosses are omitted.
Every entry is published only after all quotes have been matched character by character against the official text, and audited by an independent second reading from a different model family across all eight axes. Both agreed axes and text-grounded interpretive divergences are recorded openly. The ledger is a research record, not an assessment of the court or advice on any matter.
Back to the ledger