The prosecution of this case is dismissed.

1. Facts charged;

A. Defendant A business entity, etc. shall not engage in any advertisement that is likely to deceive or mislead consumers, and that is likely to undermine fair trade order, such as an advertisement that is likely to cause harm to fair trade order.

On June 3, 2016, at the defendant's house located in Seongbuk-gu Seoul E 301, the defendant connected the Internet clothing-related music shopping mall "D" to AdiG "F" affiliated with the "F" under his/her own name. Since he/she did not reveal the fact that he/she is in office in D and the member pretends that he/she prepares a personal clothing shopping mall, the defendant prepares a letter that compares six of the clothes of the Internet clothing shopping mall, including "D" and "I", a competitor, with respect to the defendant's "D" products, the defendant's "D" as one of the most personal words.

B. The victim's company's "I" product is considered as the most excellent product, and the victim's company's "I" product is not enough.

The lack itself is the case of its lack.

Personally, a notice was posted to evaluate it as a good product that is not good.

B. Defendant B is the representative of the Internet clothes shopping mall “D”.

A, employed by the defendant, made an unfair comparison advertisement with the above paragraph (a) at the time and place of the entry of the above paragraph.

2. The instant facts charged are crimes falling under Article 17 subparag. 1 and Article 3 subparag. 1 subparag. 1 of the Act on Fair Labeling and Advertising, and Article 71 of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act is applied mutatis mutandis pursuant to Article 16(3) of the same Act. Thus, a public prosecution may be instituted only when the Fair Trade Commission files an accusation (see Supreme Court Decision 2014Do100, Nov. 13, 2014). In such a case, it is recognized that there was an accusation by the Fair Trade Commission.