In a case where Defendants were indicted for committing an unfair competition act that interferes with the business of Eul, which caused confusion with Eul's business facilities or activities, by advertising as if the Defendants had the right to sell agricultural machinery in a specific area after the public offering, thereby selling agricultural machinery, the case affirming the judgment below convicting all of the facts charged.

Articles 30 and 314(1) of the Criminal Act, Article 2 subparag. 1, and Article 18(3)1 of the Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act

Defendant 1 and two others

Defendants

Daegu District Court Decision 2010No3876 Decided March 11, 2011

All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to Defendant 1’s ground of appeal

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined as follows: (a) comprehensively based on the duly admitted evidence, that although Defendant 1 was approved by the victim who was entitled to the consignment sale of agricultural machinery in a residential area from a new farmer corporation (hereinafter “new farmer”) on or around April 2007 to sell new farmer’s agricultural machinery only in the area of the remote-dong area at least on or before June 2008, the victim was demanded by the victim not to sell new farmer’s agricultural machinery again in a residential area; (b) in collusion with Defendant 2, Defendant 2 was placed on the pre-sale site of new farmer’s agricultural machinery; and (c) as if Defendant 1 had the right to sell new farmer’s agricultural machinery in a residential area including the pre-sale site, it advertised as if he had the right to sell new farmer’s agricultural machinery by selling approximately 10 agricultural machinery of the new farmer in a residential area around July 2008, by hindering the victim’s business by deceptive means and by using the victim’s indication that it is an identical or similar to the victim’s business activity.

The above judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and there is no violation of the rules of logic and experience and the principle of free evaluation of evidence, or there is no violation of the legal principles concerning the crime of interference with business or the violation of the Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act.

2. As to Defendant 2’s ground of appeal

According to Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment or imprisonment without prison labor for not less than ten years has been imposed, an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing is permitted. Thus, in this case where Defendant 2 was sentenced to a minor sentence, the argument that the amount of punishment is unreasonable is not legitimate grounds for appeal.

3. As to Defendant 3’s ground of appeal

The court below decided that Defendant 3 did not submit the statement of grounds for appeal within the lawful period for submission of the appellate brief even when Defendant 3 received the notification of receipt of the trial record, and that there was no reason for ex officio investigation in the part concerning Defendant 3 among the first instance judgment, and that Defendant 3 did not dismiss the appeal, but did not make a decision pursuant to Article 361-4(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and that the remaining Defendants did not file an appeal. In light of the records, this decision of the court below is just, and in such a case, Defendant 3 cannot be deemed as the ground for appeal against the court below, just as in the case where Defendant 3 did not file an appeal (see Supreme Court Decision 95Do2149 delivered on January 23, 196, etc.).

4. Conclusion

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Park Si-hwan (Presiding Justice)