beta
Text
The judgment below
The acquittal portion shall be reversed.
Of the facts charged in this case, the defendant stated in the judgment below.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Prosecutor 1) The latter part of Article 23(1) of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act (hereinafter “Fair Trade Act”) provides that “a person who causes an affiliated company or another business entity to engage in an unfair trade practice” as to the acquitted part is no longer effective by realizing a constituent act by an affiliated company to engage in an unfair trade practice, as in the Criminal Act, as in the legal doctrine of a teacher under the Criminal Act, and the crime is terminated by the affiliated company’s termination of the unfair trade practice.
Therefore, the statute of limitations on the charge of this part of the charges should also be calculated from May 1, 2010, where the act of providing disadvantage is terminated by suspending the application of the changed unit price to SOs affiliated companies, as in the case of SO belonging to the first instance court that found the Defendant guilty of the charge of giving disadvantage to each affiliated company SO (hereinafter referred to as 'SO' as in the judgment of the first instance court) by taking advantage of its trading position.
Therefore, the judgment of the court of the first instance that acquitted the Defendant of this part of the facts charged on the premise that the period of prescription should be calculated from March 30, 2009, which ordered the Defendant to reduce the unit price for the affiliated company SO, is erroneous or erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles.
2) The punishment for one deliberation of unfair sentencing (amounting to KRW 30 million) is too unhued and unfair.
B. Defendant
A. misunderstanding of the legal principles on the application of the Fair Trade Act, the instant case, essentially, constitutes pure civil disputes disputing whether A/S unit price reduction is a legitimate exercise of contractual authority, surrounding the interpretation of Article 3(1) of the business agreement, which is the purport that the Defendant may change or add the type of entrusted duties when it is necessary to adjust due to the commencement of new services or the change of business policies, etc.