The Defendant prepared and sold the above restaurant from May 7, 2014 to June 1, 2015 with the Belgium 670 km. The Defendant: (a) from May 7, 2014, after cooking and selling the Belgium 670 km purchased from E; (b) from around May 7, 2014, the Defendant indicated Meet Meet Meet Meet as “the subject product: swine Meet, the country of origin: the subject product: the subject product: the country of origin: the subject product: the country of origin, and the country of origin.” The portion marked as “Thish Meging” with the lux, which made it difficult for customers who visit the restaurant to identify, and caused them to confuse with the “Korea Megic Megic Megic Megic Megic Megic Megic me to sell the Megic Megic Megic Megic Megic me.”

2. The Defendant asserts that “The date and time indicated in the facts charged in the instant case, and at the place, the “Belgium overlaps” was sold. The Defendant recognized the fact that the country of origin of Belgium was somewhat rare due to the neglect of management. However, even if the Defendant had clearly indicated the country of origin indication of Belgium as “Belgium mountain,” and that there was no indication that may cause confusion as if it were “lurgicgicgicgicgicgicgicgicgicging” or “domestic mountain,” the Defendant asserted that “nurgicgicgicgicgicgicgs do not have any indication that may cause confusion.”

3. Determination

A. In light of the following, the burden of proving the facts charged in a criminal trial and the prosecutor bears the burden of proving the facts charged, and the acknowledgement of guilt ought to be based on evidence with probative value sufficient to cause a judge to have a reasonable doubt that the facts charged are true. Therefore, if there is no such evidence, even if there is suspicion of guilt against the defendant, it is inevitable to determine it as the benefit of the defendant.

B. The above legal principles are as follows.