Therefore, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendants on the ground that the defendants did not terminate the above trademark use contract even though the defendants' use of the above trademark infringed the victim's exclusive license, is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts that affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged in this case is that Defendant A is a person engaged in clothing and miscellaneous mail order business in the name of “D” in the Goyang-si Seoul Metropolitan City C building, and Defendant B is a substantial representative of the F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “F”) who sells clothing, etc. in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government.

Victim G Co., Ltd. is an exclusive licensee who is established an exclusive license from “J”, a domestic trademark right holder of “(trademark registration number H)” and “(trademark registration number I; hereinafter “instant trademark”).

Defendant

B entered into a contract with the victim on March 14, 2014, under which a non-exclusive license for the said trademark was granted to the said trademark, but around February 4, 2015, there was no right to use the said trademark as to the said trademark upon receipt of the victim’s notice of cancellation of the contract on the grounds of contractual breach.

Nevertheless, the Defendants, from December 1, 2016 to February 21, 2017, without obtaining the consent of the victim from “D” offices, violated the victim’s trademark right by attaching a trademark identical or similar to the trademark of this case on 4,469 clothes, such as original hyping, 129,128,100, as indicated in the list of crimes attached to the lower judgment, and selling them on the Internet shopping mall.

As a result, the Defendants conspired to infringe on the trademark right of the victim.

(b).