beta
Text
Defendants shall be punished by a fine of KRW 2,000,000.
In the event that the Defendants did not pay the above fine, each of them is 100.
Reasons
Punishment of the crime
1. The Defendants’ joint criminal conduct (the crime of January 9, 2017) is the representative director of the CC who produces and sells massages with the main force. Defendant B is the managing director in charge of planning and operating water purifiers, etc. in the foregoing company.
After the Defendant’s exclusive right to sell (ju)C’s water purifiers manufactured and supplied by D has expired on May 31, 2016, the Defendants concluded a product supply contract with the victim (E) on December 12, 2016, and commenced water purifier sales business. However, Defendant B, the representative director, and the director of business management, requested Defendant A to attend the above assembly before the victim company, and requested Defendant A and the above F to request the victim to attend the above assembly. From January 9, 2017 to October 10, 201, Defendant A and the above F agreed with (i) the victim company located in Jung-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City with the victim’s staff member 200, and (ii) the victim’s “crelication of the product with the victim’s free will,” and (iii) the victim’s product with the victim’s free will, and (iv) the victim’s product with the victim’s free will, and (iv) the victim’s product with the victim’s free will.
However, in fact, since the victim entered into a contract for the supply of goods with the owner of a separate design right in a legitimate manner and commenced the business of selling water purifiers, the victim's H purifiers did not engage in any product that interferes with the technical and design core content, characteristics, etc. identical to the C Company I water purifier, and there was no fact that the Defendant had induced C to conduct a research for C's cooperation, and there was no fact that C's
To the extent that it does not interfere with the defendants' right of defense, part of the facts charged was revised.
As a result, the Defendants would damage the reputation of the victim by openly pointing out false facts in collusion with F.