Defendant corporation

Kim So-young (prosecution), Jinho (Trial)

Law Firm Barun and 4 others, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 30 million.

The provisional payment of the amount equivalent to the above fine shall be ordered.

Of the facts charged in this case, each of the affiliated companies listed in the annexed Table 2 of the crime sight table 2 is exempted from the charge of violating the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act.

피고인 ◇◇◇◇ 주식회사 주1) (변경 전 상호 : 주식회사 ◇◇◇◇☆☆☆, 이하 ‘피고인 ◇◇◇◇☆☆☆’라 한다)는 종합유선방송사업 등을 목적으로 설립된 법인으로 방송법에 따라 일부 방송구역을 사업구역으로 허가받아 종합유선방송사업을 영위하는 자로서 독점규제 및 공정거래에 관한 법률 제2조 제1호 의 규정에 의한 사업자에 해당한다.

The pay-to-pay market is a market where platform operators, such as CATV broadcasting business operators (SO, Syst, satellite broadcasting business operators, Internet multimedia broadcast service providers, etc., provide multi-channel broadcast services to subscribers, and pay-to-pay service providers are supplied with broadcast programs by paying fees from program providers, and program providers and send broadcast programs by channel to subscribers, and make a claim for receiving fees from subscribers, and from home shopping service providers.

2) (SO)

는 종합유선방송국을 관리·운영하며 전송·선로설비를 이용하여 방송서비스를 공급하는 사업자로 일정한 방송구역을 사업구역으로 하는 방송사업허가를 받아 사업을 영위하는 독점 내지 과점사업자인바, 피고인 ◇◇◇◇☆☆☆도 전국 각 지역에서 종합유선방송사업을 독점적으로 운영하면서 그 분야에서 막강한 권한을 행사하였다.

3) A customer center is an individual or a legal entity that is entrusted by a CATV broadcasting business operator with the affairs of broadcasting, super-high speed Internet, Internet telephone, etc. within a specific area within the jurisdiction of a CATV broadcasting business operator (SO) and conducts large-party customer services, attracting subscribers, maintaining and repairing receiving facilities, suspending or recovering tracks, etc., and receives service fees from a CATV broadcasting business operator (SO).

피고인 ◇◇◇◇☆☆☆는 2009. 1. 1.경 계열회사인 주식회사 ◇◇◇◇ ◎◎방송, 주식회사 ◇◇◇◇ ◁◁방송, 주식회사 ◇◇◇◇ ▷▷▷▷방송, 주식회사 ◇◇◇◇ ♤♤방송, 주식회사 ◇◇◇◇ ♡♡방송, 주식회사 ◇◇◇◇ ●●방송, 주식회사 ◇◇◇◇ ▲▲방송, 주식회사 ◇◇◇◇ ■■■방송, 주식회사 ◇◇◇◇ ◆◆방송 등 9개 종합유선방송사업자(SO : System Operator, 이하 ‘계열회사 SO'라 함)와 ‘경영자문·위탁계약’을 체결하여, 계열회사 SO의 자금집행, 경영전략 수립·관리, 마케팅 전략 수립·관리, 대외 업체와의 계약체결 대행에 관한 행정·관리, 구매대행·관리, 인사, 방송편성, 기타 경영상 필요하다고 판단하는 업무 일체를 총괄적으로 결정·수행하고, 계열회사 SO는 피고인 주식회사 ◇◇◇◇☆☆☆가 결정한 사항을 준수하면서 영업활동과 고객관리, 지역채널 운영 등의 업무를 담당하였다.

또한, 피고인 ◇◇◇◇☆☆☆는 종합유선방송사업자인 ◇◇◇◇ □□방송, ◇◇◇◇ ★★방송, ◇◇◇◇ ▼▼방송, ◇◇◇◇ ◀◀방송 등 4개 종합유선방송사업자(이하 ‘◇◇◇◇☆☆☆ 소속 SO'라 함)를 직접 운영하였다.

한편, ▶▶▶▶센터 등 29개 고객센터들은 2008. 12. 1. 주식회사 ◇◇◇◇ ▷▷▷▷방송 등 각 지역의 피고인 ◇◇◇◇☆☆☆ 소속 SO 및 계열회사 SO와 사이에 계약기간 2008. 12. 1.부터 2009. 12. 31.까지인 ‘업무약정서’를 각각 체결하여 방송, 초고속인터넷, 인터넷전화 서비스와 관련된 장비 설치 및 철거, 수신 설비 유지·보수 등 에이에스(A/S) 업무를 위탁받아 수행한 후 업무약정서에 첨부된 ‘위탁업무 수수료 단가표’에 따라 월별 위탁수수료를 지급받기로 하였다.

고객센터는 피고인 ◇◇◇◇☆☆☆ 소속 SO 및 계열회사 SO에 비해 사업규모가 현격히 차이나고, 피고인 ◇◇◇◇☆☆☆로부터 고객센터 직원 채용·교육·평가, 고객센터장 회의 개최, 수수료 결정, 감독관(RM, Regional Manager)의 고객센터 파견 등을 통해 업무를 철저히 지휘·감독받는 상황이었으며, 위 업무약정서에 의해 비교적 단기(약 1년)의 계약기간을 1년마다 갱신하되 실적부진·불성실 등을 사유로 계약해지가 가능할 뿐만 아니라, 거래중단 시 타 SO와의 계약이 용이하지 아니한 상태에서 피고인 ◇◇◇◇☆☆☆ 소속 SO 및 계열회사 SO와의 거래에 매출을 전적으로 의존하고 있는 등 절대적 약자의 지위에 있어, 피고인 ◇◇◇◇☆☆☆ 및 그 소속 SO, 계열회사 SO들은 고객센터에 대해 거래상 우월적 지위에 있었다.

피고인 ◇◇◇◇☆☆☆의 공소외 5 차장은 공소외 1 부장, 공소외 3 상무의 결재를 받아 2009. 3. 30.경 그룹전산망이메일을 통하여 피고인 ◇◇◇◇☆☆☆ 소속 SO와 계열회사 SO의 사업부 ◇◇◇◇ ○○팀장 및 29개 고객센터 센터장들에게 기존 아날로그 가입자의 디지털 전환이 예상된다는 이유로 에이에스(A/S) 수수료 절감을 위하여 단가를 인하한다는 내용의 ‘고객센터 에이에스(A/S) 외주비 단가 조정의 건’이라는 제목의 업무연락문을 일방적으로 통보하여 고객센터와의 계약기간 중인 2009. 4.부터 4개의 피고인 ◇◇◇◇☆☆☆ 소속 SO로 하여금 각 고객센터의 에이에스(A/S) 수수료 단가를 아날로그방송의 경우 고급형, 경제형, 기본형, 단체형을 일괄하여 570원 등에서 400원으로, 디지털방송을 1,000원에서 800원으로, 인터넷통신을 1,200원에서 1,000원으로, 전화를 500원에서 400원으로 인하하도록 지시하였다.

이에 따라 주식회사 ◇◇◇◇ □□방송은 고객센터인 □□♠♠센터에게 2009. 4.부터 2010. 4.까지 일방적으로 인하한 단가에 따라 에이에스(A/S) 수수료를 지급하여 기존 수수료단가에 의한 수수료총액에서 인하한 단가에 의한 수수료총액의 차액인 162,403,000원을 지급하지 아니한 것을 비롯하여, 피고인 ◇◇◇◇☆☆☆ 소속 SO는 2009. 4.부터 2010. 4.까지 별지 범죄일람표1. 기재와 같이 일방적으로 인하한 단가에 따라 10개 고객센터에 에이에스(A/S) 수수료를 지급하여 기존 수수료단가에 의한 수수료총액에서 인하한 단가에 의한 수수료총액의 차액인 합계 1,379,132,000원 상당의 에이에스(A/S) 수수료를 지급하지 아니하였다.

이로써 피고인 ◇◇◇◇☆☆☆는 거래상 지위를 부당하게 이용하여 거래상대방인 고객센터에게 불이익을 제공하였다.

1. Partial statement of the witness Nonindicted 3 in the court

1. Each prosecutor’s protocol on Nonindicted 6, Nonindicted 1, Nonindicted 5, Nonindicted 3, Nonindicted 4, Nonindicted 7, and Nonindicted 8

1. 공소외 9 주식회사 공소외 4, 공소외 10 주식회사 공소외 4, ♥♥♣♣고객센터 공소외 11, ♧□□고객센터 공소외 8, (명칭 1 생략)♡♡방송 공소외 12, (명칭 2 생략)센터(명칭 3 생략) 공소외 13, (명칭 4 생략)지사 공소외 14, (명칭 5 생략)센터 공소외 15의 각 진술서

1. Seven written rulings, such as the complaint of the Fair Trade Commission, a review report, a written resolution on the resolution of the Fair Trade Commission, a written agreement on the business, a copy of the business agreement, a public notice of the composite cable broadcasting zone, etc., seven written rulings, including the text of the judgment, etc. of the Suwon District Court-funded 6021, each of the certified transcript of corporate register, e-mail copies

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

Each Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act (Article 70, Article 67 Subparag. 2, and Article 23(1)4)

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Article 37 (former part), Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act

1. Order of provisional payment;

Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The issue of distinction between civil acts

4) The Review Guidelines of the Fair Trade Commission’s Guidelines for Unfair Trade Practices is based on whether an enterpriser has a position in a transaction against the opposite contractual party at the stage of transaction continuation. If an enterpriser has a trade position due to reasons such as difficulty in securing the opposite contractual party’s alternative trading line, and gives various disadvantages using it, it may be subject to the application of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act (hereinafter “Fair Trade Act”). However, if an enterpriser does not have a trade position against the opposite contractual party, even if the enterpriser does not have a trade position, it does not constitute an object of the Fair Trade Act. Furthermore, even if an enterpriser has a trade position against the opposite contractual party, it does not constitute an object of the application of the Fair Trade Act. In addition, even if an enterpriser has a trade position against the opposite contractual party, there is a dispute as to the interpretation of the contract and the contents of the related Acts and subordinate statutes, etc.

In this case, the defense counsel asserts that the Fair Trade Act cannot be applied in accordance with the foregoing review guidelines, since the issue of whether the defendant's unit price adjustment of A/S fees constitutes "where adjustment of fees is necessary due to the modification of business policies, etc." under Article 3 (1) of the attached Table of the Business Agreement and the dispute arises over the interpretation of the contract, such as where civil litigation is instituted.

However, the above review guidelines are merely internal guidelines created to refer to the review process by the Fair Trade Commission and they do not have any external binding force. As such, whether the Fair Trade Act is subject to the application of the Fair Trade Act should be determined depending on whether the relevant legal relationship is a matter eligible for the application of the Fair Trade Act in light of the substance of the relevant legal relationship. If such, the above review guidelines provide that “if there is a dispute over the interpretation of a contract, etc. with respect to the reversion of rights and obligations, the obligation relationship, etc. between both parties” is not subject to the Fair Trade Act. If there is a dispute in relation to the interpretation of the relevant contract, etc., it shall not be excluded from the above application, and it shall be understood that “if it is deemed extremely unreasonable to apply the Fair Trade Act to the case where the application of the Fair Trade Act is deemed to be excluded from the application of the Fair Trade

이 법원이 적법하게 채택·조사한 증거에 의하면, 이 사건 고객센터는 피고인 ◇◇◇◇☆☆☆ 소속 SO 및 계열회사 SO와는 사업규모가 현격히 차이나고, 피고인 ◇◇◇◇☆☆☆가 행하는 고객센터 직원 채용·교육·평가, 고객센터장 회의 개최, 수수료 결정, 감독관의 고객센터 파견 등을 통해 업무를 철저히 지휘·감독받는 상황이었으며, 업무약정서에 의해 비교적 단기(약 1년)인 계약기간을 1년마다 갱신하되, 실적부진·불성실 등을 사유로 하는 계약해지가 가능하고, 거래중단 시에는 타 SO와의 계약이 용이하지 아니하여, 피고인 ◇◇◇◇☆☆☆ 소속 SO 및 계열회사 SO와의 거래에 그 매출을 전적으로 의존하고 있는 사실을 인정할 수 있는바, 피고인 ◇◇◇◇☆☆☆ 및 그 소속 SO, 계열회사 SO들이 고객센터에 대해 거래상 우월적 지위에 있음을 충분히 인정할 수 있다.

On the other hand, in the related civil procedure, the following matters were mainly discussed: (a) whether the latter part of Article 1(5) can be seen as the basis for the agreement to reduce the unit price A/S unit cost; and (b) whether the customer center explicitly and implicitly consented to the notice of reduction of unit price; (c) this is merely about the legitimacy of the claim, such as the settlement amount claimed by the Plaintiff; and (d) there was no dispute over the interpretation of the contract, etc. related to the “transaction status” of the Defendant.

In full view of the above circumstances, it is reasonable to deem this case to be subject to the Fair Trade Act, and the argument that this case is merely a civil case is without merit.

2. Whether the act constitutes an abuse of trade position and providing disadvantage;

A. Relevant legal principles

Article 23(1)4 and (2) of the Fair Trade Act and Article 36(1)6 of the Enforcement Decree of the Fair Trade Act, based on which an enterpriser's unfair trade practices are defined as "act of unfairly taking advantage of his/her trade position and trading with the other party" as a type of unfair trade practices. The purpose of this provision is to prevent a trade from abusing his/her position and disadvantage to the other party, at least in trade by abusing his/her position in order to ensure fair trade between the trading parties who have different economic power in real transactions. The purpose of this provision is to prevent a trade from taking advantage of his/her position and disadvantage to the other party in trade. Whether the trade position of this case is unfairly used shall be determined in light of the situation of the trade where the parties are placed, the gap in the overall business capacity between the parties, the characteristics of the goods or services subject to the trade, the intent, purpose, effect, specific attitude of the act, the degree of superior position in the market, and the contents and degree of disadvantage to the other party in the trade.

In order to fall under the above "Provision of Disadvantage", it is insufficient to say that the content of the act is somewhat unfavorable to the other party. As provided in items (a) through (c), it is recognized that a party unfairly uses his/her transaction position to the extent that it can be the same as compulsory purchase, coercion of provision of profits, compulsory sale target, etc., and that the party establishes or alters such transaction conditions or puts any disadvantage in the execution process. Accordingly, in light of normal transaction practices, it must be at risk of unfairly giving disadvantage to the other party and impeding fair trade. Whether the act unfairly gives disadvantage to the other party should be determined by comprehensively taking into account all the factors such as the content of the transaction terms at issue and the degree of disadvantage to the other party, the degree of competition restriction arising from the ordinary transaction process between the parties, trade practices and forms in the related industry, impact on the general competition order, and the provisions of the related Acts and subordinate statutes (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Du5327, Dec.

B. Determination

In full view of the following circumstances recognized by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by this court, the defendant's act constitutes an unfair trade practice that goes against normal trade practices by unilaterally notifying the transaction partner of the unit price reduction even though it is in the middle of the contract period by taking advantage of its superior position in his/her trade.

① 앞서 본 바와 같이 고객센터는 거래중단 시 타 SO와의 계약이 용이하지 아니한 상태에서 피고인 ◇◇◇◇☆☆☆ 소속 SO 및 계열회사 SO와의 거래에 매출을 전적으로 의존하고 있는 등 절대적 약자의 지위에 있었다.

② Since 2008, the Defendant asserted that since its affiliates have continued to invest in facilities more than 40 billion won a year. As a result, the service quality has been stable and the rate of A/S occurrence has been significantly decreased, the Defendant pointed out that the price competitiveness has been lowered due to the Defendant’s operation of a higher A/S unit price system compared to competitors. The year 2009 was the time when the service provider started the business in full scale and competition in the pay-charging market has been risen. On December 31, 2012, the time when the broadcast was completed, which was the time to reorganize the business to convert from the broadcast to digital broadcasting, was the time when the business has to be done for the transition from the broadcast to the digital broadcasting, not the existing distribution store-centered business channel, installation, removal, and integrated customer center system. Even if the unit price has been reduced, even if the customer center’s active operation, it is not reasonable to adjust the fee simply by comprehensively taking into account the following factors.

However, according to the customer center A/S foreign service cost adjustment sent by the Defendant to the affiliated SO and its affiliated SO, “the case of customer center A/S foreign service cost adjustment” includes the following: “The existing A/S foreign service cost adjustment expected to be in need of digital conversion of the subscriber; and the A/S foreign service cost adjustment is reduced to KRW 2.8 billion by 18.5 billion with the A/S foreign service cost adjustment as of February 2, 2009; and there is no statement in the Defendant’s assertion that the A/S generation rate is lower; nor there is no statement that the customer center will reduce the unit price due to changes in the overall business policy; thus, it is difficult for the Defendant to deny that the initial disbursement would increase if the A/S unit price is converted to a large digital broadcasting service provider.

③ Although the term of the contract changes important terms and conditions, the changes were unilaterally notified without seeking the opinion of the customer center, and the fee was immediately applied from April 2009 without a grace period, and the fee was paid after deducting.

The Defendant asserted that prior to the foregoing unit price adjustment, the Defendant gathered the head of the Gyeonggi-do and the customer center in the Seoul Metropolitan Area and sought understanding of the proposal. However, even according to Nonindicted 3’s testimony, the Defendant unilaterally notified the participants at the time that the future unit price adjustment could have been made, and it is difficult to view that he/she heard opinions on the said adjustment. Even if there was an opposing opinion, the customer center head in the position of the disadvantaged did not have a situation in which he/she can freely express his/her

(4) 29 customer centers have suffered significant disadvantage, such as that the difference of fees not paid according to the unilateral application of the modified unit price reaches 3,581,242,00 won in total.

Of the subsidies that the Defendant began to pay from May 2009, the “customers center evaluation and operation expenses” did not amount to the actual performance of the customer center’s operation. The “customers center promotion expenses” means the payment of KRW 2,00,000 per additional personnel per month when the customer center recruits more than a certain number of human resources. However, when employing additional personnel, the additional expenses are additionally incurred, and the additional measures are taken only until December 2009. Thus, it is difficult to view that the loss of the customer center caused by the above unit price reduction was compensated.

3. Whether the statute of limitations has expired;

A defense counsel asserts that the statute of limitations has expired after the lapse of five years, since the act of this case was not required to continue for a certain period of time due to the act that occurred immediately after the unit price was adjusted, and the act of this case is not required to be completed for a certain period of time. Thus, the act of this case was not completed immediately after the adjustment of unit price around April 2009. In addition, the prosecutor's office held that the act of adjusting unit price of this case was illegal during the contract period. The contract period set in the initial business agreement cannot be deemed to have been adjusted against the contract period from January 1, 2010 until December 31, 2009, and therefore, the statute of limitations has expired.

On the other hand, Article 23(1)4 of the Fair Trade Act provides that the act of providing disadvantage to the other party by unfairly taking advantage of the transaction position is punished, so a crime that continues to be committed against the other party through the above unfair trade practices is to continue. Furthermore, according to Article 4 (Agreement Period, etc.) of the Business Agreement concluded by each SO and the Customer Center, if there is no declaration of intent to terminate or modify the agreement in writing one month prior to the expiration date of the contract, the automatically extended under the same condition as one year. The customer center of this case can be recognized that the changed unit price has been continuously applied to the customer center of this case after the expiration date of the contract pursuant to the above provision. Ultimately, it is reasonable to deem that the statute of limitations has been calculated from May 1, 2010 when the above changed unit price was terminated, and since it is apparent that the prosecution of this case was instituted on April 27, 2015 before the expiration of five years thereafter, all of the above arguments are without merit.

A punishment shall be determined as ordered in comprehensive consideration of all the circumstances, such as the fact that the relevant money has been paid in full due to the completion of the relevant civil litigation, and the fact that it is deemed that there was a cause for a case of failure to understand the relevant statutes such as the Fair Trade Act.

1. Summary of the facts charged

피고인 ◇◇◇◇ 주식회사 주6) (변경 전 상호 : 주식회사 ◇◇◇◇☆☆☆, 이하 ‘피고인 ◇◇◇◇☆☆☆’라 한다)는 종합유선방송사업 등을 목적으로 설립된 법인으로 방송법에 따라 일부 방송구역을 사업구역으로 허가받아 종합유선방송사업을 영위하는 자로서 독점규제 및 공정거래에 관한 법률 제2조 제1호 의 규정에 의한 사업자에 해당한다.

The pay-to-pay market is a market where platform operators, such as CATV broadcasting business operators (SO, Syst, satellite broadcasting business operators, Internet multimedia broadcast service providers, etc., provide multi-channel broadcast services to subscribers, and pay-to-pay service providers are supplied with broadcast programs by paying fees from program providers, and program providers and send broadcast programs by channel to subscribers, and make a claim for receiving fees from subscribers, and from home shopping service providers.

종합유선방송사업자 주7) (SO) 는 종합유선방송국을 관리·운영하며 전송·선로설비를 이용하여 방송서비스를 공급하는 사업자로 일정한 방송구역을 사업구역으로 하는 방송사업허가를 받아 사업을 영위하는 독점 내지 과점사업자인바, 피고인 ◇◇◇◇☆☆☆도 전국 각 지역에서 종합유선방송사업을 독점적으로 운영하면서 그 분야에서 막강한 권한을 행사하였다.

8) A customer center is an individual or a legal entity that is entrusted by a CATV broadcasting business operator with the affairs of broadcasting, super-high speed Internet, Internet telephone, etc. within a specific area within the jurisdiction of a CATV broadcasting business operator (SO) and conducts large-party customer services, attracting subscribers, maintaining and repairing receiving facilities, suspending or recovering tracks, etc., and receives service fees from a CATV broadcasting business operator (SO).

피고인 ◇◇◇◇☆☆☆는 2009. 1. 1.경 계열회사인 주식회사 ◇◇◇◇ ◎◎방송, 주식회사 ◇◇◇◇ ◁◁방송, 주식회사 ◇◇◇◇ ▷▷▷▷방송, 주식회사 ◇◇◇◇ ♤♤방송, 주식회사 ◇◇◇◇ ♡♡방송, 주식회사 ◇◇◇◇ ●●방송, 주식회사 ◇◇◇◇ ▲▲방송, 주식회사 ◇◇◇◇ ■■■방송, 주식회사 ◇◇◇◇ ◆◆방송 등 9개 종합유선방송사업자(SO : System Operator, 이하 ‘계열회사 SO'라 함)와 ‘경영자문·위탁계약’을 체결하여, 계열회사 SO의 자금집행, 경영전략 수립·관리, 마케팅 전략 수립·관리, 대외 업체와의 계약체결 대행에 관한 행정·관리, 구매대행·관리, 인사, 방송편성, 기타 경영상 필요하다고 판단하는 업무 일체를 총괄적으로 결정·수행하고, 계열회사 SO는 피고인 주식회사 ◇◇◇◇☆☆☆가 결정한 사항을 준수하면서 영업활동과 고객관리, 지역채널 운영 등의 업무를 담당하였다.

또한, 피고인 ◇◇◇◇☆☆☆는 종합유선방송사업자인 ◇◇◇◇ □□방송, ◇◇◇◇ ★★방송, ◇◇◇◇ ▼▼방송, ◇◇◇◇ ◀◀방송 등 4개 종합유선방송사업자(이하 ‘◇◇◇◇☆☆☆ 소속 SO'라 함)를 직접 운영하였다.

한편, ▶▶▶▶센터 등 29개 고객센터들은 2008. 12. 1. 주식회사 ◇◇◇◇ ▷▷▷▷방송 등 각 지역의 피고인 ◇◇◇◇☆☆☆ 소속 SO 및 계열회사 SO와 사이에 계약기간 2008. 12. 1.부터 2009. 12. 31.까지인 ‘업무약정서’를 각각 체결하여 방송, 초고속인터넷, 인터넷전화 서비스와 관련된 장비 설치 및 철거, 수신 설비 유지·보수 등 에이에스(A/S) 업무를 위탁받아 수행한 후 업무약정서에 첨부된 ‘위탁업무 수수료 단가표’에 따라 월별 위탁수수료를 지급받기로 하였다.

고객센터는 피고인 ◇◇◇◇☆☆☆ 소속 SO 및 계열회사 SO에 비해 사업규모가 현격히 차이나고, 피고인 ◇◇◇◇☆☆☆로부터 고객센터 직원 채용·교육·평가, 고객센터장 회의 개최, 수수료 결정, 감독관(RM, Regional Manager)의 고객센터 파견 등을 통해 업무를 철저히 지휘·감독받는 상황이었으며, 위 업무약정서에 의해 비교적 단기(약 1년)의 계약기간을 1년마다 갱신하되 실적부진·불성실 등을 사유로 계약해지가 가능할 뿐만 아니라, 거래중단 시 타 SO와의 계약이 용이하지 아니한 상태에서 피고인 ◇◇◇◇☆☆☆ 소속 SO 및 계열회사 SO와의 거래에 매출을 전적으로 의존하고 있는 등 절대적 약자의 지위에 있어, 피고인 ◇◇◇◇☆☆☆ 및 그 소속 SO, 계열회사 SO들은 고객센터에 대해 거래상 우월적 지위에 있었다.

피고인 ◇◇◇◇☆☆☆의 공소외 5 차장은 공소외 1 부장, 공소외 3 상무의 결재를 받아 2009. 3. 30.경 그룹전산망이메일을 통하여 피고인 ◇◇◇◇☆☆☆ 소속 SO와 계열회사 SO의 사업부 ◇◇◇◇ ○○팀장 및 29개 고객센터 센터장들에게 기존 아날로그 가입자의 디지털 전환이 예상된다는 이유로 에이에스(A/S) 수수료 절감을 위하여 단가를 인하한다는 내용의 ‘고객센터 에이에스(A/S) 외주비 단가 조정의 건’이라는 제목의 업무연락문을 일방적으로 통보하여 고객센터와의 계약기간 중인 2009. 4.부터 4개의 피고인 ◇◇◇◇☆☆☆ 소속 SO와 9개 계열회사 SO로 하여금 각 고객센터의 에이에스(A/S) 수수료 단가를 아날로그방송의 경우 고급형, 경제형, 기본형, 단체형을 일괄하여 570원 등에서 400원으로, 디지털방송을 1,000원에서 800원으로, 인터넷통신을 1,200원에서 1,000원으로, 전화를 500원에서 400원으로 인하하도록 지시하였다.

이에 따라 주식회사 ◇◇◇◇ ♡♡방송은 고객센터인 ♥♥♣♣센터에게 2009. 4.부터 2010. 4.까지 일방적으로 인하한 단가에 따라 에이에스(A/S) 수수료를 지급하여 기존 수수료단가에 의한 수수료총액에서 인하한 단가에 의한 수수료총액의 차액인 200,634,000원을 지급하지 아니한 것을 비롯하여, 피고인 ◇◇◇◇☆☆☆ 계열회사의 SO는 2009. 4.부터 2010. 4.까지 별지 범죄일람표2. 기재와 같이 일방적으로 인하한 단가에 따라 19개 고객센터에 에이에스(A/S) 수수료를 지급하여 기존 수수료단가에 의한 수수료총액에서 인하한 단가에 의한 수수료총액의 차액인 합계 2,202,110,000원 상당의 에이에스(A/S) 수수료를 지급하지 아니하였다.

이로써 피고인 ◇◇◇◇☆☆☆는 계열회사로 하여금 거래상 지위를 부당하게 이용하여 거래상대방인 고객센터에게 불이익을 제공하게 하였다.

2. Determination

In the latter part of Article 23(1) of the Fair Trade Act, separate from engaging in direct unfair trade practices, the Fair Trade Act prohibits an affiliated company or any other business entity from engaging in an unfair trade practice, and stipulates it as an independent constituent element. Therefore, the statute of limitations on the “act of having an enterpriser engage in an unfair trade practice” should be determined separately from the act of directly engaging in an unfair trade practice by the business entity.

In the instant case, if the Defendant’s order to reduce the unit price by sending a business liaison letter of customer center Es(A/S) unit price adjustment to SO on March 30, 2009 is deemed to be “the act of having a customer center conduct an unfair trade act”, the above criminal act was terminated by the Defendant’s above notification on March 30, 209, and the statute of limitations from the time when the company’s unfair trade act was terminated is not deemed to have run.

The instant public prosecution is dismissed in accordance with Article 326 subparag. 3 of the Criminal Procedure Act, since it is apparent in the record that the instant public prosecution was instituted on April 27, 2015, five years after the completion of the said criminal act, and this part of the facts charged was completed.

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.

[Attachment]

Judge Lee E-interest

Note 1) As of the end of 2014, a member company of an enterprise group that is a “pro rata” amounting to KRW 7,73.3 billion in sales based on the connection, operating income amounting to KRW 1,57.4 billion, and KRW 1,06.8 billion in net income.

2) A multiple CATV broadcasting business operator who operates more than two broadcasting zones with a license for a multiple broadcasting business is a multiple CATV broadcasting business operator.

3) The head of the center employs 2-3 general employees, 2-3, and 100 articles, and receives equipment, facilities, offices, etc. from SO.

Note 4) V. 6. (2)

5) If it is necessary to change or adjust entrusted duties due to the change of business policy, etc., the defendant, etc. may change or add the entrusted duties fees to the customer center after notification.

(6) As of the end of 2014, 73.3 billion won in sales based on the connection, operating income, 157.4 billion won in operating income, and 106.8 billion won in operating income as a member of an enterprise group belonging to the ▽▽▽▽△ group.

Note 7) A multiple CATV broadcasting business operator who operates more than two broadcasting zones with a license for a multiple broadcasting business;

Note 8) The head of the center employs 2-3 general employees, 2-3, and 100 articles, and receives equipment, facilities, offices, etc. from SO.