A. With respect to the Defendants (Definite and misunderstanding of the legal principles), the “I” design for vehicles (hereinafter “the instant I design”) sold by Defendant A and the “X A” design for vehicles (hereinafter “the instant D-registration design”) are not similar.

In addition, in light of the fact that Defendant A visited a fair held in the U.S., and heard the speech that there is no problem of infringement of design rights by Chinese companies, imported and sold the instant I design products, Defendant A affixed a trademark registration “R,” and sold the instant I design products, etc., Defendant A did not have an intention to violate the Design Protection Act.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine or by misapprehending the facts, thereby convicting the Defendants of this part of the facts charged.

B. In relation to the violation of the Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act, according to the data on D’s sales size, advertising status, sales size, etc. submitted by the complainant, D’s products are confirmed to have a considerable market share and personal guidance. Many companies are importing, manufacturing, and selling D’s products. In addition, a three-dimensional shape of X-based shape covering D’s entire food stuff is first employed in D, and a large X-based shape of X-based shape is produced in companies other than D. Nevertheless, the lower court acquitted Defendant 2 of this part of the charges by misunderstanding the facts charged. Each Defendant 30 million won of each of the charges is unjust.