"Ice cream price-fixing"-charged Binggrae corporate entity had its 200 million won fine finalized by the Supreme Court.
According to legal sources on the 4th, the Supreme Court's First Division (presiding Justice Shin Suk-hee) finalized the lower court ruling that imposed a 200 million won fine on the Binggrae corporate entity for violating the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act.
The case became known when the Fair Trade Commission (FTC) disclosed suspicions of ice cream price-fixing by four companies, including Binggrae, Lotte Food, Lotte Confectionery, and Haitai Confectionery & Foods. The FTC found that from Feb. 15, 2016, to Oct. 1, 2019, these companies obtained 10 billion won in unjust gains through collusion on ice cream sales and supply prices and partitioning of ice cream retail transaction counterparts. It issued corrective orders, imposed a total penalty surcharge of 135.045 billion won, and filed complaints against some companies and executives.
In Feb. last year, the first trial court sentenced the Binggrae corporate entity to a 200 million won fine. The first trial court said, "The four leading domestic ice cream manufacturers, including Binggrae, engaged in continuous and repeated collusion," and added, "In particular, Binggrae was previously hit with a penalty surcharge of a little over 700 million won for colluding to raise prices of cone-type products around 2007, and yet again committed the crime in this case, which makes it highly blameworthy."
Binggrae and other companies appealed, but they were also convicted on appeal. In June, the appellate court said, "Binggrae argues that the lowering of (frozen dessert, etc.) prices did not result from an agreement," but added, "However, it appears that the four companies took various actions based on a basic agreement to lower prices for the same purpose."
In the appellate ruling, Binggrae executive A and Lotte Food executive B were sentenced to one year in prison, suspended for two years, and Lotte Confectionery executive C and Haitai Confectionery & Foods executive D were sentenced to six months in prison, suspended for one year. They did not file appeals, and the sentences were finalized.
By contrast, the Binggrae corporate side appealed, arguing, "Believing that we would be exempt from prosecution as a leniency applicant, we cooperated with the investigation, but the prosecution's indictment is an unlawful abuse of prosecutorial discretion."
However, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal by the Binggrae corporate entity. The Supreme Court said, "The claim of abuse of prosecutorial discretion was neither previously raised by the defendant as a ground of appeal nor taken up ex officio by the appellate court as an issue for judgment, and it is being asserted for the first time at the stage of final appeal," adding, "This does not constitute a valid ground for appeal."