[1] Whether an act of violating the former Electrical Appliances Safety Control Act, which manufactured electrical appliances without obtaining safety certification, and an act of violating the former Electrical Appliances Safety Control Act, which sold electrical appliances without a safety certification mark, constitutes a blanket crime (negative)

[2] The case holding that the judgment of acquittal of all the charges is unlawful on the ground that the part of the charge that the former manufacturer without safety certification mark, etc. among the charges that the former manufacturer and the former manufacturer without safety certification under the former Electrical Appliances Safety Control Act "manufacturing" and "sale" had a relation between the crime of manufacturing "manufacturing" and the crime of blanket crimes of the final summary order

[1] A series of acts that infringe on the same legal interests and are naturally anticipated to be a single comprehensive crime. However, the former Electrical Appliances Safety Control Act (amended by Act No. 7441 of Mar. 31, 2005) imposes an obligation on a manufacturer of electrical appliances subject to safety certification to obtain safety certification by model under Article 5(1) of the same Act, and separately, Article 7(1) of the same Act imposes an obligation not to sell electrical appliances subject to safety certification without a safety certification mark, etc. on the importer and seller of electrical appliances. Further, Articles 15 subparag. 5 and 8 of the same Act are separate provisions for each of the above acts. In general, the act of manufacturing and selling goods is an independent act accompanying the manufacturing act, and the act of manufacturing and selling goods cannot be deemed as an inevitable means to constitute a separate comprehensive crime from the act of manufacturing and selling them. Thus, the act of manufacturing and selling electrical appliances must be deemed as a separate comprehensive crime from the act of selling them.

[2] The case reversing the judgment of the court below which acquitted all the charges on the ground that the electric ioner without safety certification mark, etc. among the facts charged that the electric ioner subject to safety certification under the former Electrical Appliances Safety Control Act (amended by Act No. 7441 of Mar. 31, 2005) was "sale" without safety certification, and that the electric ioner without safety certification mark, etc. was related to the crime of "manufacturing" in the final summary order and the crime of blanket crimes

[1] Articles 5(1), 7(1), 15 subparag. 5, and 8 of the former Electrical Appliances Safety Control Act (amended by Act No. 7441 of March 31, 2005), and Article 37 of the Criminal Act / [2] Articles 5(1), 7(1), 15 subparag. 5, and 8 of the former Electrical Appliances Safety Control Act (amended by Act No. 7441 of March 31, 2005), Article 37 of the Criminal Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 83Do2031 delivered on November 8, 1983 (Gong1984, 56) Supreme Court Decision 84Do1945 delivered on October 23, 1984 (Gong1984, 1875) Supreme Court Decision 99Do1744 delivered on August 20, 199 (Gong199Ha, 1918)

Defendant 1 and one other

Prosecutor

Seoul Eastern District Court Decision 2006No712 Decided October 19, 2006

Of the judgment below, the part concerning the sale of electrical appliances subject to safety certification without the safety certification mark shall be reversed, and this part of the case shall be remanded to Seoul Eastern District Court Panel Division. The prosecutor's remaining appeal

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below affirmed the facts charged in this case that Defendant 1 did not obtain safety certification as prescribed by the former Electrical Appliances Safety Control Act (amended by Act No. 7441 of Mar. 31, 2005; hereinafter the same) and manufactured the electrical electrical appliances which are subject to safety certification on August 24, 2004, "manufacture" and "sale" four times from August 25, 2004 to September 3, 2004, and Defendant 2, the representative of Defendant 1, committed the same act of violation. The court below affirmed the judgment of the court below as to the facts charged in this case and affirmed the facts charged in this case since the defendants' act of manufacturing the electrical appliances which are subject to safety certification, without obtaining safety certification as prescribed by the same Act on four occasions from September 3, 2002 to March 16, 2005, which became final and conclusive prior to the issuance of the above summary order as a whole.

As the grounds of appeal, even though the product manufactured by the defendants is the same model, the date, time, and place of manufacture and sale of electrical appliances in the facts charged in this case differs from that of the facts charged in this case, so the facts charged in this case and the facts charged in the above facts charged are not a comprehensive crime, but a single and continuous crime, but a single and continuous crime, if several acts falling under the name of the same crime continue to be conducted for a certain period and the damage legal benefits are the same, each act shall be punished by a single comprehensive crime. Of the facts charged in this case's "manufacture" and "Sale," the act of manufacturing electric ions, which are subject to safety certification, without obtaining safety certification as prescribed in the former Electrical Appliances Safety Control Act, is related to the act of manufacturing "manufacture," which is the same as the facts charged in which the summary order has become final, and thus, the court below's decision to dismiss the act of "manufacture" which is subject to safety certification, is justified and the prosecutor's grounds of appeal cannot be accepted

However, as to whether the act of manufacturing electrical appliances subject to safety certification without obtaining the safety certification of the facts charged of this case and the act of selling electrical appliances without obtaining the safety certification can be seen as having a relation to a single comprehensive crime, it can be seen as a single comprehensive crime. Although Article 5(1) of the former Electrical Appliances Safety Control Act imposes on the manufacturer of electrical appliances subject to safety certification the duty of obtaining the safety certification by model of the electrical appliances subject to safety certification under Article 7(1), and separately imposes on the importer and seller of electrical appliances subject to safety certification the duty of not selling electrical appliances without the safety certification mark, and as to each of the above offenses, Articles 15 subparag. 5 and 8 are separate penal provisions, and in general, the act of manufacturing and selling the goods is independent, and the act of selling them can not be seen as a separate act of selling them under Article 18 subparag. 4 of the former Electrical Appliances Safety Control Act and Article 98(1) of the former Electrical Appliances Safety Control Act.

Thus, the part of the facts charged of the manufacture and sale of this case, which "sale" of electrical appliances subject to safety certification without the safety certification mark under the former Electrical Appliances Safety Control Act, is related to the crime of "manufacture" of the above final summary order and the crime of "manufacture" of the above final summary order. Thus, the court below's decision that acquitted all the facts charged of this case is erroneous in the misunderstanding of legal principles as to the general

Therefore, among the judgment below, the part concerning the sale of electrical appliances subject to safety certification without the safety certification mark shall be reversed, and this part of the case shall be remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Jeon Soo-ahn (Presiding Justice)