beta
Text
The judgment below
Among them, the part against Defendant A is reversed, and this part of the case is remanded to the Panel Division of the Incheon District Court.
Reasons
The grounds of appeal are examined.
1. As to Defendant A’s ground of appeal
A. According to the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court found facts as indicated in its reasoning based on the evidence adopted, and found Defendant A guilty of the facts charged in this case on the ground that Defendant A participated in the unfair collaborative act from around April 2, 2008, and each of the above collaborative acts can be viewed as a continuing one act in light of the purpose, method, etc. of crime, so insofar as Defendant A did not express or impliedly express intent to withdraw, Defendant A participated in the collaborative act until March 25, 2009, which is the final collaborative date of the relevant collaborative act, and thus, Defendant A was not guilty.
B. However, we cannot accept the above judgment of the court below for the following reasons.
(1) Article 19(1) of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act (hereinafter “the Act”) provides that “no enterpriser shall agree with another enterpriser to engage in, or cause another enterpriser to engage in, any of the following acts jointly restricting competition (hereinafter “unfair collaborative act”) by contract, agreement, resolution, or any other means.” Article 19(1)9 of the Act provides that prohibited act of restricting competition “the act of determining, maintaining, or changing the price” (Article 19(1)9 of the Act and “the act of determining terms and conditions for the transaction of goods or services, or for the payment of the price thereof,” and Article 66(1)9 of the Act provides that “a person who has committed, or has another enterpriser conduct, an unfair collaborative act in violation of Article 19(1)9 of the Act” shall be punished. Thus, a violation of Article 66(1)9 of the Act is established by agreement with another enterpriser to engage in an act falling under any of the subparagraphs of Article 19(1) of the Act that unfairly limits competition with another enterpriser.