Defendants are innocent.

1. A person who intends to manufacture and export electrical appliances subject to the summary safety certification of the facts charged of this case to the Republic of Korea from a foreign country shall obtain such safety certification, and a person who is not a person who has obtained such safety certification shall not affix the safety certification and the inspection of the safety certification and the labelling of the electrical appliances and their packaging.

1. A around June 2014, Defendant A put a mark specified in the safety certification and safety standards on 1,200 flass (a model name: F, G; hereinafter “the instant display”) that he/she sent from the office of Geumcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government building DB to the Republic of Korea by Germany.

2. Defendant B, at the same time, and at the same place as paragraph (1), the Defendant committed the above crimes regarding the Defendant’s business.

2. Determination

1. Summary of the assertion

A. Article 6(1)1 of the Electrical Appliances Safety Control Act (wholly amended by Act No. 13859, Jan. 28, 2017; hereinafter “the Act”) provides that a person obligated to affix a safety certification mark on electrical appliances shall be limited to a manufacturer who has obtained safety certification pursuant to Article 3(1) of the Act and an importer, and Article 6(2) of the Act shall not be limited to a person who has failed to obtain safety certification pursuant to Article 3(1) of the Act, but shall not affix a safety certification mark or any other similar mark on the electrical appliances and their packages.

Therefore, even if the manufacturer obtained safety certification, if the importer uses the safety certification mark, it constitutes a violation of Article 6(2) of the Act.

In this case, it is unclear whether the manufacturer has obtained safety certification, and even if it has received safety certification, the defendant, the importer, after customs clearance.