All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. The basic device to be installed in each equipment described in the summary of the grounds for appeal is already in the state of conformity assessment and certification, and in the case of finished products, it is necessary to determine the standards and operation conditions appropriate to the site after the test at the site of the actual installation and undergo an assessment again. Since the suspension of transactions and the cancellation of installation during the on-site test process did not undergo conformity assessment, the manufacture and sale of the equipment are not completed.

In addition, since it is not actually used or operated, it cannot be a violation of the Radio Waves Act.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine or misunderstanding the Defendants’ liability for violating the Radio Waves Act.

2. Determination

A. Article 58-2(1) of the Radio Waves Act provides that any person who intends to manufacture, sell, or import broadcasting and communications equipment, equipment, electromagnetic wave interference, or equipment affected by electronic waves (hereinafter referred to as “broadcasting and communications equipment, etc.”) shall undergo conformity assessment on the relevant equipment in accordance with the standards for conformity assessment; and Article 84 Subparag. 5 of the same Act provides that any person who sells, manufactures, or imports for the purpose of sale, equipment, etc. which has not undergone conformity assessment under Article 84 of the same Act shall be punished; however, the above provisions stipulate that any person who intends to manufacture, sell, or import broadcasting and communications equipment, etc. shall undergo conformity assessment in advance and shall manage such equipment in an efficient and safe manner in

I would like to say.

Therefore, the crime of violating the Radio Waves Act is established in the case of manufacturing and importing broadcasting and communications equipment, etc. which are not subject to exemption from suitability evaluation unless they are subject to prior evaluation, and whether they are used after manufacture and import, and whether they are fully carried out after sale and import, and whether they are not related to the establishment of crime.

B. As to the instant case, the health team, the lower court, and the first instance court are legitimate.