Defendant 1 and one other

Friririness

Attorney Kim Jong-sung

Defendants shall be punished by a fine of KRW 2,000,000.

When Defendant 1 fails to pay the above fine, the above Defendant shall be confined in a workhouse for the period calculated by converting 50,000 won into one day.

1. Defendant 1

The Defendant is the representative director of Defendant 2 Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant 2”) on the fourth floor of Gangnam-gu Seoul Eastdong (number 2 omitted).

No person shall sell any goods by misrepresenting another person's goods or making another person misunderstand the quality of goods.

On February 2, 2007, the Defendant, a food manufacturing business reporting company, provided the victim Nonindicted Party (hereinafter “Nonindicted Party”) operating the “○○○○○○○○” (hereinafter “Nonindicted Party”), and Defendant 2 concluded a product supply contract with the Defendant to provide the “○○○○○○○” with the cost of product design, film, copper, and sponsor equipment, and the “○○○○○○○○” with the product supply contract with the Defendant to manufacture the primary pent (Dak, chemical, doping) in three color colors.

According to the above contract, the victim reported the food product manufacturing matters under the Food Sanitation Act to the Sungnam Viewing, attached the film containing the phrase “goods labelling matters” which invoked the phrase written in the report to the back of the choco-container container, manufactured and finished three cryp in the color, and supplied the Defendant from June 2007 to December 2007.

Since then, Defendant 2, who did not agree with the victim regarding the date of supply, price, etc. of the Seocho-gu, and thus delayed supply from January 22, 2008 to May 29, 2008, Defendant 2, in the process of directly manufacturing the Seocho-gu, Daejeon (hereinafter omitted), indicated the product labeling “○○○○○, Location: relative Won-gu, Seongbuk-gu, Sungnam-gu, Gyeonggi-do (number 1 omitted)” on the product labeling “the product labeling items” in the product labeling at the product labeling at the factory of Daejeon-gu, Daejeon-gu, Daejeon-gu (hereinafter omitted), and affixed films “the product labelling items” attached to the Defendant’s primary pent-do, which were supplied by the victim to the Defendant, attached to the back of the Seocho-gu container. From January 22, 2008 to May 29, 2008, Defendant 2, including Defendant 327,327,327, and 324, etc. of Seocho-gu (Seoul-dong).

Accordingly, the Defendant sold goods by misrepresenting the goods of “○○○○” operated by the victim or by misleading the quality of the goods.

2. Defendant 2

The Defendant, a juristic person established for the purpose of selling the breabbbbbing containers and materials, etc., and Defendant 1, the representative director thereof, sold goods by misrepresenting the goods of “○○○○○” operated by the Nonindicted Party concerning the Defendant’s business or making the goods misunderstand the quality of the goods.

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Statement of the Nonindicted Witness in the second trial record

1. The police statement of the Nonindicted Party

1. A copy of the written confirmation prepared by the defendant;

1. A copy of the agreement;

1. A copy of the notification of an establishment violating food sanitation business, a product comparison photograph, and a fake pentle selling office;

1. Article relevant to the facts constituting an offense and the selection of punishment;

Defendant 1: Articles 18(3)1 and 2 subparag. 1(f) of the former Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act (amended by Act No. 9225, Dec. 26, 2008; hereinafter “former Unfair Competition Prevention Act”).

Defendant 2: Articles 19, 18(3)1, and 2 subparag. 1(f) of the former Unfair Competition Prevention Act

1. Detention in a workhouse (Defendant 1);

Articles 70 and 69(2) of the Criminal Act

1. Defendants’ assertion of defense counsel

The Defendants’ defense counsel was sentenced to a fine of KRW 3,00,000 on the fact that the Defendants produced the primary pentle without filing a manufacturing report, and it was confirmed that the Defendants developed and produced the primary pentle around 2006 and entrusted the Nonindicted Party with the production from February 2, 2007, and sold it directly. The Nonindicted Party produced and sold the primary pentle because it was inevitable for the Nonindicted Party to supply the primary pentle around January 2008. Furthermore, the Constitutional Court rendered a decision of unconstitutionality on the joint penal provisions, and thus, Defendant 2 was not guilty.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion that a judgment of acquittal should be rendered

According to the defendants' decision (Evidence List 5), with regard to the fact that the defendants manufactured the scopium at Defendant 2's factory from January 22, 2008 to March 30 of the same month without reporting to the head of the competent Gu, the defendants were sentenced to a fine of 3,00,000 won as an offense of violating the Food Sanitation Act at the Daejeon District Court on November 14, 2008 (2008 high-level 3759) and the judgment became final and conclusive around that time, but even though the judgment became final and conclusive at that time, the defendants' act of violation of Article 77 subparagraph 1 and Article 22 (5) of the former Food Sanitation Act (wholly amended by Act No. 9432 of Feb. 6, 2009) and Article 18 (3) 1 and Article 2 (1) 1 (f) of the former Unfair Competition Prevention Act and the fact that the defendants' act of misrepresenting the quality of goods or misleading the quality of goods as provided for in the above Unfair Competition Prevention Act is clear.

Therefore, we cannot accept this part of the Defendants’ defense counsel.

B. As to the assertion that Article 18(3)1 and Article 2 subparag. 1(f) of the former Unfair Competition Prevention Act are not violated

According to the comparative photographs of counterfeit products (Evidence 2), a copy of the business report (Evidence 7), a copy of the food item manufacturing report (Evidence 8), a copy of the agreement (Evidence 14), etc. ① The Nonindicted Party reported the business of manufacturing and processing food from November 17, 2001 to the name of “○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○”).

C. As to the assertion that there was a decision of unconstitutionality on joint penal provisions by the Constitutional Court

In the Constitutional Court Order 2008HunGa17 decided July 30, 2009, Article 86 of the former Road Act (wholly amended by Act No. 7832 of Dec. 30, 2005, and wholly amended by Act No. 8976 of Mar. 21, 2008; hereinafter the same) with the exception of the portion of "the representative of a corporation", "where an agent, employee or other worker of a corporation commits an offense under Article 83 (1) 2 with respect to the corporation's business, the corporation shall be punished by a fine under the relevant Article," and the facts charged against Defendant 2 violated the Constitution, and this part of the defendants' defense counsel's allegation is rejected.

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.

Judge Dok-be