In a recent ruling, the Supreme Court of Korea upheld a KR₩200 million fine against Binggrae Co., Ltd. for its participation in a large-scale price-fixing scheme involving Korea’s top ice cream manufacturers. The decision, handed down on October 16, 2025, by the Supreme Court’s First Criminal Division (Presiding Justice Shin Sook-hee) brings closure to what has been described in the media as the largest food industry price collusion case in Korean history.
Background: The Korean “Big Four Ice Cream Collusion Case”
- Between February 2016 and October 2019, the “Big Four ice cream companies” – Binggrae, Lotte Food, Lotte Confectionery, and Haitai Confectionery were found to have conspired to manipulate the domestic ice cream market. The Korean companies coordinated to:
- Fix wholesale and delivery prices;
- Restrict sales and promotional competition;
- Divide retail clients; and
- Predetermine successful bidders in ice cream purchasing.
Following a comprehensive investigation, the Korea Fair Trade Commission (KFTC) imposed administrative fines totaling approximately ₩111 billion in February 2022, distributed as follows:
| Company | Fine (KR₩ billion) |
|---|---|
| Binggrae | 38.8 |
| Haitai Confectionery | 24.4 |
| Lotte Confectionery | 24.4 |
| Lotte Food | 23.7 |
2. Under the KFTC’s leniency program, Lotte Confectionery and Haitai Confectionery avoided criminal prosecution by voluntarily reporting the cartel. However, Binggrae and Lotte Food were referred to the Seoul Central District Prosecutors’ Office for criminal proceedings.
3. By the time of the indictment in October 2022, Lotte Food had merged with Lotte Confectionery and was excluded from the criminal charges.
Korean Lower Court and Appeal Decisions
The Seoul Central District Court imposed a KR₩200 million criminal fine on Binggrae for violating the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act (MRFTA). The court found that Binggrae and its co-conspirators had systematically agreed to fix prices and limit market competition and, thus, directly harmed consumers and retailers. The court also criticized Binggrae for being a repeat offender, noting its ₩700 million fine in 2007 for a similar ice cream price-fixing offense.
The Seoul High Court (Appellate Court) later upheld the conviction and sentence of the Seoul Central District Court. Although it found Binggrae guilty on additional counts related to “corn” and “sandwich” ice cream products that were dismissed at the court of first instance. The Seoul High Court determined that the KR₩200 million fine remained appropriate in light of the totality of the circumstances.
Korean Supreme Court Decision (2025Do11279)
On October 16, 2025, the Supreme Court of Korea affirmed the appellate ruling and dismissed Binggrae’s appeal. Binggrae argued that the prosecution had abused its right to indict (discretion), claiming the company believed it would be exempt under the leniency program due to its cooperation with investigators. The Supreme Court rejected this argument, emphasizing that:
“Binggrae did not raise the alleged abuse of the right to prosecute as a ground of appeal in the lower court, and introducing it for the first time before this Court does not constitute a legitimate basis for appeal.”
Accordingly, the Korean Supreme Court held that no procedural or substantive errors existed in the lower court’s findings and upheld the KR₩200 million fine.
Legal and Compliance Implications
This ruling serves as a strong reminder of Korea’s zero-tolerance stance toward cartel activity and reinforces several important compliance principles for corporate entities operating under the MRFTA:
- Strict Procedural Compliance for Leniency: Cooperation with the KFTC does not automatically guarantee immunity. Companies must satisfy all statutory and procedural requirements to qualify for leniency.
- Importance of Early Legal Advice: Entities under investigation should seek immediate legal counsel to navigate interactions with the FTC and prosecution, thereby preserving their rights and mitigating exposure.
- Comprehensive Antitrust Compliance Programs: Companies in concentrated markets, particularly those in the consumer goods sector, should maintain proactive training, auditing, and reporting mechanisms to prevent inadvertent collusion.
- Preservation of Legal Arguments: Issues such as prosecutorial discretion or procedural fairness must be raised at the earliest stage to avoid being barred on appeal.
IPG Legal
IPG Legal is recognized as a leader in antitrust and competition law advisory services in Korea, providing strategic, practical, and results-driven counsel to both domestic and multinational clients. We are often used as a second opinion for companies being advised by their in-house teams and outside counsel, as well as for front-line defense services.
IPG Legal’s attorneys have extensive experience representing corporations before the Korea Fair Trade Commission (KFTC) and in related civil and criminal proceedings, offering comprehensive guidance on merger control, cartel investigations, abuse of dominance, unfair trade practices, and compliance programs. With a deep understanding of the regulatory landscape and strong working relationships with government agencies, IPG Legal helps clients navigate complex investigations and develop proactive compliance strategies to minimize risk.