Defendants shall be punished by a fine of two million won.

Defendant

If A does not pay the above fine, 100,000.

Punishment of the crime

1. Defendant A

(a) A manufacturer of electrical appliances subject to safety assurance in violation of the Electrical Appliances Safety Control Act following the reporting of safety assurance shall undergo a safety assurance test conducted by a safety certification agency or a safety assurance testing agency to confirm that the relevant electrical appliances conform to the safety standards and shall file a report, and a person who fails to file the said report shall not put a safety assurance report, etc. or any other mark similar thereto on the electrical appliances subject to

Nevertheless, around June 10, 2013, the Defendant, at the office of “B” operated by the Defendant in Gwangju City, put an indication of the safety confirmation report, etc. on the two,70 copies of the electric temperature so as to take advantage of and attach the safety confirmation report number of the electric temperature sheet (a model name: KM122( Q)), which was reported by Dongyang-si Industries, to the electric temperature series produced by “G” (hereinafter “instant electric temperature series”) after being requested to manufacture from “G” office operated by the Defendant in “B” (hereinafter “instant electric temperature series”).

(b) A Mayor/Do Governor who violates the Electrical Appliances Safety Control Act following the failure to comply with an order to remove electrical appliances subject to safety assurance may, if any electrical appliances subject to safety assurance fails to file a safety declaration, etc., order the manufacturer to destroy or remove the electrical appliances subject to safety assurance, and the manufacturer shall comply with the order;

The defendant around June 17, 2016 set forth in Section 1-A from the Gwangju City Mayor.

Even though the order for the removal and destruction of the electric temperature oil sheet of this case was issued with the indication of the safety confirmation report, as stated in the Paragraph, it was not implemented on the ground that the product was already released and sold.

2. Defendant B, the Defendant, on June 13, 2005, engaged in the electric set manufacturing business, etc.