Violation of the Food Sanitation Act | A Case in Which a Suspension of Indictment Was Obtained by Assisting a Client Facing the Risk of Punishment Under the Food Sanitation Act

This is the account of a client who, facing charges of violating the Food Sanitation Act, needed the assistance of an attorney specializing in criminal matters.

The client, who operated an aquaculture business, came to be investigated by the competent administrative agency on charges of violating the Food Sanitation Act on the grounds that a drug component exceeding the permissible residue limit had been detected in the farmed flatfish the client had supplied.

As a result of the investigation, although the drug in question was a treatment medication generally used at fish farms, the matter was included as subject to criminal punishment because the detected level exceeded the permissible standard.

The client argued, “I did not intentionally supply fish with residual medication, the customary withdrawal period had been observed, and the fish had also passed the regular inspections of the National Fishery Products Quality Management Service,” but this argument was not accepted in the initial investigation, leaving the client at risk of being indicted on the charge of violating the Food Sanitation Act.

Asserting that this outcome was unjust, the client retained an attorney specializing in criminal matters to handle the case.

In the Food Sanitation Act violation case, after comprehensively reviewing the submitted materials and statements, the prosecution recognized that the client’s conduct lacked intent and that the client had sufficiently carried out preventive measures in advance.

Accordingly, a disposition of suspension of indictment was issued in the client’s case.

A suspension of indictment is a system under which, although the facts of the offense are recognized, the prosecutor, taking comprehensive account of the gravity of the offense, the motive, prior records, and the degree of remorse, does not refer the case to trial and defers punishment.

In other words, it does not remain as a criminal record, and the case is concluded without the imposition of criminal punishment.

In this case as well, the client’s diligent management and remorse, along with the absence of intent in the offense, were recognized, and the matter was concluded with a suspension of indictment.

In Food Sanitation Act violation cases, securing evidence and organizing the facts from the very initial response stage are highly important.

· Immediately Secure Inspection and Management Records
Pre-shipment inspections of fishery products or food, result notices from the National Fishery Products Quality Management Service, quality certification materials, and the like must be secured immediately.

The management history from an inspection agency serves as the most important basis for showing that ‘there was no intent.’

· Clearly Explain the Circumstances of Drug Use and Environmental Factors
In the case of aquaculture, the use of drugs for the purpose of disease prevention may be unavoidable.

The type of drug, the date of administration, and the withdrawal period must be organized in specific detail and submitted.

· Secure Evidence of the Business Operator’s Performance of Management Duties
Employee training logs, internal sanitation management regulations, pre-shipment inspection records, and similar materials can strongly establish that the violation was not intentional.

· Secure Materials on Control of the Distribution Process
Through contracts with supplied businesses, shipment dates, delivery certificates, and the like, control over the distribution process must be established in order to reduce the scope of liability.

· Submit a Letter of Reflection and an Improvement Plan for Leniency
Preparing specific measures such as system improvements to prevent recurrence and the strengthening of sanitation manuals can work favorably in the prosecution’s assessment.

In Food Sanitation Act violation cases, the presence or absence of intent, the management system, and the diligence of post-incident measures determine the outcome of the case.

As in this case, if the act constituting the violation occurred in an environment where it was unavoidable, and management records and inspection materials exist, there is a strong likelihood of concluding the case with a suspension of indictment or a non-prosecution disposition.

Therefore, for food-related business operators, leaving a management history at every stage of production and distribution itself serves as a ‘legal shield.’

Because organizing evidence systematically with the assistance of an attorney at the initial investigation stage is the most certain way to prevent an unjust punishment, if you are facing related charges, we encourage you to proceed with a 🔗legal consultation appointment.