하도급거래공정화에관한법률위반
The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Daejeon District Court Panel Division.
The court below should ex officio investigate and determine an accusation in a crime in which a prosecution can be instituted only when an accusation is filed, since such accusation constitutes an ex officio matter as a condition of active litigation, and even if the party did not assert it as a reason for appeal.
(See Supreme Court Decision 2009Do9939 Decided December 10, 2009). The facts charged in this case are crimes falling under Articles 30(1)1 and 4(1)6 of the former Fair Transactions in Subcontracting Act (amended by Act No. 10475, Mar. 29, 201; hereinafter “the foregoing Act”) and may be prosecuted only when a criminal charge is filed by the Fair Trade Commission pursuant to Article 32 of the above Act.
However, even if examining the record, there is no evidence suggesting that there was an accusation by the Fair Trade Commission concerning the facts charged of this case.
Therefore, the court below maintained the judgment of the court of first instance which found the defendant guilty without failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations as to whether there was an accusation by the Fair Trade Commission regarding the facts charged of this case, even though it should have investigated ex officio and judged the legitimacy of the institution of the prosecution of this case. Thus, the court below should have affected the conclusion of the judgment by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations by misapprehending the legal principles on Article 32 of the
Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.