Of the defendants, the part concerning defendant B is reversed.

Defendant

A corporation shall be punished by a fine of KRW 10,000,000.

(a) the trademark “G” of the Dog, Co., Ltd., Ltd., which is a separate charge;

2. Afforestation 3) and the trademark “H” in Defendant B Co., Ltd. (Attachment to the facts charged);

2. The forest is not identical or similar, and thus there is no possibility of confusion as to the origin of a product.

Therefore, there is confusion as to the origin of each of the above trademarks because they are identical or similar to each other.

The judgment of the court below that found this part of the facts charged guilty is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts.

B. The Defendants did not recognize illegality by using a trademark registered under the Trademark Act, even if the Defendants’ act constitutes a violation of the Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act against the Seoul milk cooperative, a violation of the Trademark Act against the ice, and a violation of the Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which convicted the charged facts of this case is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the recognition of illegality.

(c)

The punishment of the court below (Defendant A: 3 years of suspended sentence in June, 1 year and 3 years of suspended sentence, Defendant B: fine of 30,000,000) is too unreasonable.

Judgment

A. An act of using a trademark identical or similar to another person’s registered trademark on goods identical or similar to the designated goods on the assertion of mistake of fact constitutes an act of infringing on the trademark right.

In this context, determination as to whether a trademark constitutes an act of using similar trademarks ought to be made from the perspective of whether a trader or a general consumer who represents two trademarks differently from the time and place is likely to mislead or confuse the source of goods when comprehensively considering the impression, memory, relationship, etc. that two trademarks inflict on traders or ordinary consumers by means of their appearance, name, and concept, etc. based on the actual circumstances of the relevant goods (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Do1150, Dec. 10, 2015).