beta
Text
All the judgment of the court below and the judgment of the first instance are reversed.
Acquittal of the Defendant
Reasons
The grounds of appeal are examined.
1. The summary of the facts charged is a nonprofit incorporated association under Article 2 subparagraph 4 of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act (hereinafter “Fair Trade Act”), which is established for the purpose of promoting the sound development of the electric wire industry and increasing mutual benefits among the members.
No enterprisers' organization shall agree with other enterprisers to engage in any act of unfairly restricting competition by jointly determining the price or quantity of production.
The Defendant, along with the employees of 34 electric cable suppliers (hereinafter referred to as “electric cable suppliers”), agreed on the price, volume, and allocation in the annual unit price contract of electric power line goods ordered by the Korea Electric Power Corporation (hereinafter referred to as “Korea Electric Power”) from September 27, 2000 to September 12, 2007 with respect to the Defendant’s business, and concluded an annual unit price contract of the Korea Electric Power Line goods from November 30 to August 30, 2007 with the Korea Electric Power Line goods to comply with the said agreement, and concluded an annual unit price contract with the Korea Electric Power Line goods from August 30, 2005 to September 11, 2008, thereby unfairly restricting competition (hereinafter referred to as “instant collaborative act”).
2. The lower court determined that the Defendant ordered the quantity allocated to electric cable suppliers by September 1, 2008 by the method of ordered production was the execution of the agreement on the price and quantity distribution with electric cable suppliers. As such, the instant collaborative act was terminated on September 11, 2008, and the statute of limitations has run from the end of September 11, 2008. Since the instant public prosecution was instituted on July 10, 2013, which was the five-year statute of limitations under the Criminal Procedure Act, prior to the expiration of the five-year statute of limitations under the said Act, the prosecution was lawful, and thus, the Defendant was guilty of the instant facts charged.