2010dan5730 Violation of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act

1. A stock company that carries 000 beverages;

Seoul Location

Representative Director Lee 00

2. A 00 beverage stock company;

Seoul Location

Joint representative director Kim 00, Man 00

3. Fixed price (**********************) and previous representative director of beverages 000.

Seoul Songpa-gu

Seoul basic domicile

4. Kim 00 (***********************) and the representative director of a beverage.

Seoul residential Seocho-gu

Seoul basic domicile

Kim Jong-hwan (Lawsuits) and Chuncheon (Trial)

Attorney Lee Ho-jin, Kim Jin, Choi Jin, Choi Ho-ho, Oi, Lee Jae-ho, Lee

(Defendant 000 drink Co., Ltd., and Purpose of Purpose)

Attorney Lee In-bok (Defendant 000 beverage Co., Ltd., and Purpose)

Law Firm Sejong (Defendant 00 drinks Co., Ltd., and for Kim 00)

Attorney Lee Young-gu, Attorneys Lee Jin-young, Choi Ho-ho, and Park Jin

January 5, 2012

Defendant 100 drink Co., Ltd. is punished by a fine of KRW 100,00,00; a fine of KRW 50,00,000; and a fine of KRW 20,00,00; and a fine of KRW 20,00,000; and Defendant Kim0 is punished by a fine of KRW 7,00,00.

Defendant 1) and Kim 00, when each of the above fines is not paid, the above Defendants shall be confined in the workhouse for a period calculated by converting the amount of KRW 100,000 into one day.

The above order the defendants to pay each of the above fines in an amount equivalent to the provisional payment.

Criminal History Office

Defendant 10 is the former representative director of the 000 beverage company, Defendant Kim 00 is the representative director of the 00 beverage company, Defendant Kim 00 is the corporation with the purpose of manufacturing and selling soft beverage. Defendant 00 beverage company is the corporation with the purpose of manufacturing and selling beverage such as soft beverage or fruit beverage.

1. Defendant 10 (Joint Act in Price of beverages between five drinking companies around February 2008)

(1) On November 30, 207, the Defendant agreed to raise the cost of beverages at 00 beverages Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "00 beverages"), 00, executive directors of the 00 beverages, following consultation with the 00 drinking industry (hereinafter referred to as "0 beverages"), 00, and 00, 000, 006, 60, 100, 100, 200, 200, 300, 100, 300, 100, 100, 1000, 200, 100, 200, 100, 100, 100, 100, 100, 100, 200, 200, 30,000, 10,000,000,00,000,00).

The Defendant raised the average 10% of the negligence beverages and 5% of the carbon beverages and 5% of the beverages in around February 3, 2008, through broad information exchange, etc. on the price increase between the above agreements and the above companies’ practitioners (in accordance with the agreement, the average 10% of the beverages and 5% of the beverages and 5% of the beverages, respectively).

From February to March 2008, around 00 beverages 25 items, *** * 40 items for beverages, * * * * * * 12 items for 12 items for 12 items, 00 foods average 5 to 10% for 27 items for beverages).

Accordingly, the defendant agreed to change price jointly with other enterprisers to restrict unfairly competition, thereby engaging in unfair collaborative acts.

2. Defendant Jeong, Defendant Kim 00

A. On September 008, 200, Defendant Kim 00 proposed to increase the drinking price around September 2008 in order to overcome the decrease in operating income from exchange rate, raw material price, etc. by making phone calls to the Defendant Company around July 2008, in order to resolve the decrease in the drinking price. Defendant Jeong Y consented to this, and the executives of each company agreed to discuss later at a later time. The agreement was reached around July 2008, to discuss the necessity and increase plan of increase in the drinking price, etc. of 00 and 000, a regular business operator of the 000 drinking beverage at the marketing office around July 200, to deliver the drinking beverage price of 00 to the above 00 drinking beverage price increase of 0.7.200,000 won, and to deliver the drinking beverage price of 00 to the employees of this company around August 207, 200.

According to the above agreement, the Defendants formulated a plan to increase the 64 items of beverage products of 000 beverage and 52 items of beverage products of 000 beverage by average 10% around September to October 2008 (round September 2008, each company prepared a plan to increase the 10% price of beverage products, but at the Government's price discount request, only some of the products of 00 beverage companies were raised, and the execution of the increase was revoked or postponed for the remaining products of 00 beverage companies).

B. On December 1, 2008, Defendant 10 agreed on December 12, 2008, Defendant 10, the managing director of 000 of 000 beverages, after consultation with the side of 00 beverages, to increase the price of the negligent beverage product at around December 5, 2008, and around December 17, 2008, Defendant 10 agreed on the increase of 10% of the price of the negligent beverage product at the 41st Kandong, Seoul, Yangcheon-gu, in order to overcome the decline in business profits due to the reduction of the concentration in 000 and 10% of the total amount of 00 beverages at the coffee shop around December 1, 2008.

According to the above agreement, around December 30, 2008, the Defendants raised the price of the 000 beverage and the 1.5 liter of the 000 beverage respectively by about KRW 9 to 16%.

(c) Collaborative acts of priceing of beverages between 000 beverages and 00 beverages on February 2, 2009;

On December 18, 2008, the Defendants held a meeting by members of the Consultative Council on the Normalization of Sales Order for Clean Beverages, and Defendant Kim 00 agreed to raise the drinking price by explaining the rate of exchange and raw material price increase to Defendant fixed, and by accepting it on February 2, 2009, the Defendants agreed to raise the drinking price around February 2009, and around January 18, 2009, the 00, who was ordered to prepare a draft on the drinking price increase in consultation with Defendant fixed, around 00, by telephone around 00 00 beverages and by discussing the two companies’ increase in the drinking price increase in the drinking price.

The Defendants raised 129 items of beverage products and 129 items of beverage products of 000 and 43 items of beverage products of 000 on February 2, 2009 on the average of prices and information exchange between the aforementioned agreements and the practitioners, respectively.

As a result, the Defendants agreed to jointly act to change the price so as to restrict competition on three occasions, thereby engaging in an unfair collaborative act.

3. Defendant 000 beverage company

As stated in each of the above paragraphs (1) and (2), the defendant committed an unfair collaborative act by mutual agreement with other enterprisers to jointly restrict competition with regard to the defendant's business.

4. Defendant 00 drink Co., Ltd.

As stated in each of the above paragraphs (1) and (2), the Defendant agreed that the representative personnel of the Defendant, 00, Kim00, who is the representative personnel of the Defendant, shall jointly engage in an act of changing the price to restrict unfairly competition with other enterprisers in relation to the Defendant’s business.

Summary of Evidence

1. Each legal statement of the defendant 3, 100

1. Each protocol of examination of the suspect against the defendant 10, Kim 00

1. Each prosecutor’s protocol of statement concerning garrosium, Iso0, Iso0, Iso0, Iso0, Iso0, Isoo, Kim Mao00, Woooman, Mao0, Mao-Mao0, Mao-Mao-Mao, Mao-Mao-Ma, Mao-Mao-Ma, Mao-Mao-Ma, Nao-Ma,

1. Accusation against violators of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act, and the application of statutes on written resolutions;

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

A. Defendants: Articles 66(1)9 and 19(1)1 of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act

B. Defendant 00 drink Co., Ltd. and 00 drinks Co., Ltd.: Article 70 of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act

1. Selection of punishment (Defendant 10,000);

Selection of each fine

1. The Defendants among concurrent crimes (the Defendants)

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

1. Detention in a workhouse (Defendant's fixed time, Kim 00);

Articles 70 and 69(2) of the Criminal Act

1. The provisional payment order (the Defendants)

Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

Grounds for sentencing

We examine as to Defendant 1 and Kim00. The above Defendants’ motive and background leading up to the agreement of this case, the status and role of the above Defendants in the agreement of this case, the sales and market share of each company, and the above Defendants’ confession of all of the crimes of this case, etc. In addition, they shall select a fine and determine the punishment by taking into account the various matters prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act, which are conditions for sentencing, such as Defendant 10, Kim00, the age, character and conduct, and environment, in the trial process of this case.

A fine shall be imposed on Defendant 00 drink Co., Ltd. and 00 beverages Co., Ltd. in consideration of health stand, Defendant 1, the representative of Defendant Company, the degree of unfair collaborative acts in Kim 00, the degree of penalty surcharge imposed on Defendant Company, etc.

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

Judges Cho Sung-sung