The issue in this case was whether the Defendants provided unjust benefits to the business group’s owner family by using a golf course operated by a third affiliate in which the owner family held the majority of shares.

This was the first criminal case focusing on the illegal conduct of “work funnelling” to a specially related party, which was introduced to the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act (“MRFTA”) in August 2014, along with other types of provision of unfair benefits prohibited under the MRFTA. It will serve as an important precedent in future cases related to illegal funnelling of work within a business group for private interests. Despite the absence of precedents, our firm was able to obtain a final and conclusive judgment of acquittal for the first time in a criminal case related to work funnelling. We explained the legislative intent of the MRFTA along with reasonable interpretations of the concepts of “unfairness,” “interests,” “reasonable consideration,” and “significant scale,” which are the specific elements of the alleged violation, and proactively argued that it is necessary to strictly prove the existence of intent and the awareness of illegality in a criminal case involving an MRFTA violation.