Therefore, even though the defendants' act of manufacturing and selling G using "F" constitutes an infringement of trademark rights of a trademark right holder, the court below acquitted the defendants on the ground that G and household water purifiers do not constitute identical or similar goods. The judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is a corporation established for the purpose of manufacturing and selling high-functional water treatment devices through nanotechnology, and Defendant A is an internal director of the said corporation.

1) From February 6, 2008 to February 11, 2015, the Defendant: (a) at the foregoing company’s office located in Busan City D building 102 Dong 1002 and 1002; (b) in order to sell G products with arbitrarily marked “F” marks registered as designated goods with a household water purifier in the Korean Intellectual Property Office, the Defendant may use health-friendly and clean water by advertising to the effect that “F is displayed on the website,” and used a trademark identical or similar to another person’s registered trademark for goods similar to the designated goods.

2) Defendant B, at the same time and place as above, infringed another’s trademark right regarding the Defendant’s business as above with A, a representative of the Defendant.

B. 1) Where a trademark identical or similar to the registered trademark of an owner of a trademark is used for goods identical or similar to the designated goods of the owner of the trademark, the trademark right holder’s trademark right is infringed.

Whether or not goods are similar shall be manufactured by the same enterprise when a trademark is used for the same or a similar trademark in comparison with the goods.