Defendant shall be punished by a fine of three million won.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

A. As to the violation of the Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act, “D” and “D” do not have the right to exclusive use any language consisting of L and M as a general master. Therefore, even if the Defendant used the phrase “D” on its website, it does not constitute a violation of the Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act. Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged in violation of the Trademark Act by misunderstanding of facts or misapprehending legal principles regarding the fact that the Defendant entered into a franchise agreement with the victim and entered into a franchise store agreement with the victim, and subsequently, the Defendant did not change the above website while changing the name of a private teaching institute, and did not infringe the victim’s right to service mark. Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged, but did not infringe the victim’s right to service mark. However, the lower court erred by misunderstanding of facts or misapprehending legal principles. The Defendant’s fine (five million won) declared by the lower court on the grounds of ex officio judgment on February 2, 197.

The judgment of the court below is no longer maintained as the subject of the judgment was changed by this court's permission.

However, despite the above reasons for ex officio destruction, the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles is still subject to the judgment of this court.

3. Judgment on the mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles by the defendant

A. As to the violation of the Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act, the victim’s trade name “D Mediation Institute” acquired well-knownness.

The Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act.