상표법위반
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
1. The statement of the witness C of the court below to the effect that the defendant did not have an intention to violate the Trademark Act is not reliable. Meanwhile, according to the witness I of the court below's witness I, even if the defendant could have had an intention to do so, there is insufficient evidence to view that the defendant was aware of the fact that the product sold to G was a forged product, and the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant of the fact that the defendant was erroneous, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.
2. Determination
A. On August 21, 2012, the Defendant, along with C and D, conspired to sell a 4 set of “SAP UNG” sign, which was imported in China, sold to G four-dimensional lamps with the same shape as “SAPG” (No. 40081749400000), a trademark registered by “SAP” (No. 40817490000), which is a trademark registered by “SASG” (hereinafter “instant product”), thereby infringing on the trademark right holder’s trademark right.
B. The lower court determined that: (a) the Defendant consistently asserted from the investigative agency to the lower court that the instant product was sold to G through D with the knowledge of the fact that it was authentic; (b) each of the statements made by C, D, and G involved in the instant product transaction did not conflict with the Defendant’s defense; and (c) it is insufficient to recognize that the Defendant was aware of the instant product as a forged product and sold it only with other evidence submitted by the prosecutor; and (d) there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, and thus, acquitted the Defendant on the ground that
(c) In a criminal trial for a trial for a final judgment, the conviction shall be based on evidence with probative value that makes it possible for a judge to have the conviction that the facts charged are true beyond a reasonable doubt.