No business operator, etc. shall engage in any act of labeling or advertising that is likely to deceive or mislead consumers, which is likely to undermine fair trade order.

Nevertheless, the Defendant, from April 2015 to early July 2016, placed an advertisement on the D’s website, and the Defendant placed an advertisement on the “D” website, stating that the Defendant did not have obtained a patent for the use of the marrout pipe in manufacturing the marrout pipe sold by the Defendant, despite the fact that he/she had not obtained a patent for the use of the marrout pipe, the Defendant placed an advertisement with the content that “the marrout pipe with the marrout pipe with the marrout pipe,” and the marrout pipe contains an internal heat source, and even though the heat generated from the heat source, as it is the heating system that generates heat by inserting the liquid with the marrout pipe without the electric heat, and displayed or advertised it differently or ambiguously, thereby misleading the consumers.

2. All the evidence submitted by the prosecution, including the police statements of the E and the details of D Internet advertising, etc., which alone led to the Defendant to display or advertise a false or ambiguous indication or advertisement as stated in the facts charged, thereby misleading consumers;

It is insufficient to view it.

First of all, as to the part of the facts charged, “The fact was advertised with the content that “Notwithstanding the fact that there was no patent granted for the use of the anti-proof pipe in the production of the white shot tree sold by the Defendant,” the direct evidence of this part of the D Internet advertising is “the anti-proof shot shot shot shot shot shot shot.”