[부정경쟁방지및영업비밀보호에관한법률위반][집50(1)형,853;공2002.5.1.(153),940]
[1] The meaning of "false indication of origin" under Article 2 subparagraph 1 (c) of the former Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act
[2] The case holding that it constitutes an act of falsely marking the country of origin of the Vietnam master and causing misconception of the country of origin on a three-dimensional plant made in the Andong with the importation of the Chinese hemp master and marking the "new sub-stoves", etc. on the stoves made in the Andong
[1] "False indication of origin" under Article 2 subparagraph 1 (c) of the former Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act (amended by Act No. 6421 of Feb. 3, 2001) is not necessarily related to only the origin of a finished product, but also includes a false indication of the origin of a product in cases where the origin of the raw material of the product has a significant meaning in light of trade norms.
[2] The case holding that it constitutes an act of falsely marking the country of origin of the Vietnam master and causing misconception of the country of origin by falsely marking the country of origin of the Vietnam master, as if it were the number of tribes made by the hemp produced in the Andong anddong of this number, on the tribsian products made in the Andong, which imported the Chinese hemp master and marked the "Stop", etc.
[1] Article 2 subparagraph 1 (c) (see current Article 2 subparagraph 1 (d)) of the former Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act (amended by Act No. 6421 of Feb. 3, 2001) / [2] Article 2 subparagraph 1 (c) (see current Article 2 subparagraph 1 (d)) of the former Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act (amended by Act No. 6421 of Feb. 3, 2001)
Defendant 1 and one other
Prosecutor
Daegu District Court Decision 2001No462 delivered on September 6, 2001
The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Daegu District Court Panel Division.
The court below found Defendant 1 as a substitute for the facts charged that Defendant 1 displayed 'new soil and rock' on packaging boxes of the machinery of this case on the basis of its employed evidence, but determined that such act constitutes an indication of false origin under Article 2 subparagraph 1 (c) of the former Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act (amended by Act No. 6421 of Feb. 3, 2001; hereinafter referred to as the "Act"), it cannot be concluded that Defendant 1 was not guilty of 'the place of origin' or 'the place of origin of this product' on the premise that Defendant 1 could not be viewed as a false domestic product, since it imported 'the 'TGGGGG' from the raw material of 'the 'the place of origin of this product' and 'the 'the place of origin of this product' on the ground that Defendant 2 was processed and manufactured at the factory located in the Dong-si company of the Republic of Korea, and it cannot be concluded that Defendant 1 was not guilty of 'the place of origin of this case'.
However, "False labeling of origin" in Item 1 (c) of Article 2 of the above Act does not necessarily relate to only the origin of completed goods, but also includes false labeling of origin in cases where the origin of the raw materials of goods has important meaning in light of trade norms. Meanwhile, according to the records, the facts charged in this case is "........................................ the case did unfair competition act, "an indication of origin is likely to mislead the misunderstanding of origin as if it was made in the number of tribes produced in the insidedong region," and therefore, it is not a question about the false labeling of origin, but it is a question about the false labeling of the origin of Sambewon.
According to the facts duly admitted by the court below and records, Defendant 1 imported marijuana from China as its raw material and supplied and sold them to agricultural cooperatives, etc. with a large number of 3-beats made of machinery at its factory located in Ansan-si. The defendant 1 indicated 1's "new soil (or 1, 2 products according to kinds)," "development of 10% of the Republic of Korea's first 10% of mari-mari-mari-mari-mari-mari-mari-math in its packing boxes" on the title of "one Korean national residing in the Republic of Korea", which is called as "one Korean national of the Republic of Korea's function holder of the Mari-mari-mari-mari-mari-marith," and it is more widely known that the Korean national engaged in the production and distribution of 1-mari-marith in the field of 3-Mari-Marith's products, and the production and distribution of 1-marith's products in the area of Ma.
Nevertheless, the court below found the Defendants not guilty on the facts constituting the crime of this case on the ground that the Defendants’ act does not constitute a false indication of origin is erroneous. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the false indication of origin under Article 2 subparagraph 1 (c) of the Act, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment. The appeal on this point is with merit.
Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on other grounds of appeal, the judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices
Justices Kim Ji-dam (Presiding Justice)