The court below determined on the grounds of appeal by the defense counsel that the facts charged in the indictment of this case cannot be viewed as having been specified since the trademark used by the defendant infringed only on any of the trademark registered in the indictment of this case, and since the facts charged in the indictment of this case are not sufficient to distinguish whether the trademark used by the defendant infringed on any of the above trademarks, the court below rejected the judgment of the court below on the grounds that the defendant infringed on the "Tenro trademark registered with the Korean Intellectual Property Office on October 16, 191 and February 13, 192" and that the above company infringed on the "Tenro trademark registered with the Korean Intellectual Property Office on October 16, 191 and February 13, 192, 192, the trademark registration number No. 74017 and Feb. 13, 1992, the trademark registration number No. 74017 and the trademark registration number No. 76400 (hereinafter referred to as trademark infringement).

2. Determination on the ground of appeal No. 2

If the evidence adopted by the first instance judgment maintained by the court below is examined by comparing the records and records, the trademark used by the defendant and the above infringed trademarks are in the critical part of the figure figure of the person holding pool competition, and when comparing the essential part of the trademark, it cannot be deemed that there was an error of law by wrong judgment as to the similarity of trademark like theory in the judgment below which found the trademark identical or similar to one another. In short, although the letters "POLO" are written on the infringed trademarks, the part is a common master expressing the use or efficacy of the designated goods and has no distinctive character. Thus, even if the letters "POLO" are written on the trademark used by the defendant, the trademark used by the defendant cannot be deemed as similar to the infringed trademark, but all of the specific infringed trademarks as above are not indicated "POLO", and the court below did not accept the reasoning of the judgment below as it did not recognize that the trademark was similar to the infringed trademark used by the defendant on the ground that the word "POLO" was written on the trademark used by the defendant.

3. Determination on the ground of appeal No. 3

If the evidence of the first instance court affirmed by the court below is examined by comparing the records and records, it cannot be deemed that there was an error of law by misunderstanding the rules of evidence or misunderstanding the legal principles as to the subject of trademark use, as in the theory of lawsuit, and therefore, there is no reason to see that the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the defendant's trademark use.

4. Determination on the ground of appeal No. 4

If a trademark similar to the registered trademark of another person is used in our country for goods identical with or similar to the designated goods, even if the goods bearing the trademark are manufactured only for the purpose of exporting to Japan with no effect of the trademark right, it constitutes an act of infringing the trademark right of the registered trademark (see Supreme Court Decision 90Hu984 delivered on December 21, 1990), and such conclusion does not change on the ground that the goods bearing the trademark are exported by the original equipment manufacturing method (OEM).

The judgment of the court below that held to the same purport cannot be deemed to have erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the intellectual effect of trademark rights, such as the theory of lawsuit, and therefore there is no reason for discussion.

5. Therefore, the defendant's appeal shall be dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Ahn Yong-sik (Presiding Justice)