A. In order to recover the attempted price of the beds supplied to the victim and to recover the cost of the beds manufactured with a trademark attached to the victim's trademark as stated in the facts charged in this case, the defendant only sold the beds produced under the supply contract with the victim and thus there is a reasonable means or method of the act. While the victim unilaterally discontinued transaction with the victim, the defendant suffered losses equivalent to the cost of the bed production, while the defendant sold the bed, there is no loss suffered by the victim, and there is an urgent balance between the protected legal interest and the infringed legal interest. The defendant's act was urgently sold the bed with the bed products that were stored in the bed, and the victim's trademark was attached to the bed and boomed on the surface of the bed, and thus, it could not be removed. The defendant's act of selling the bed without selling the bed, which did not violate the legal principles as to the act of selling the bed, which are unlawful under Article 20 of the Trademark Act, by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the act of selling the bed.

B. The judgment of the court below on unreasonable sentencing (one million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The phrase “act that does not contravene social norms” as stipulated in Article 20 of the Criminal Act claiming a justifiable act can be accepted in light of the overall spirit of legal order or the social ethics or social norms surrounding the act.