The defendants produced sitts by using the form of bruth, which is a trademark having knowledge and well-known all over the world and well-known, and let the general public mistake that this sitts were produced in the Bluth, and the judgment of the court below which acquitted the general public of the facts charged in this case, is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. The judgment of the court below

1) According to the examination of whether the Defendant used the mark as a trademark in this case, there is a difference in color in terms of such as butber trademark and the mark on the trademark register (registration number 1 omitted) (registration number omitted in the judgment of the Supreme Court) as to whether the Defendant used the mark as a trademark. However, it is recognized that the examination is similar to that to the extent that, in the overall appearance of the mark, it may cause confusion in the source of goods to ordinary consumers, inasmuch as the crossing form, number, and arrangement order of lines and red lines are identical, and the overall appearance of the mark is identical.

2) However, the evidence as seen earlier and the protocol of examination of the suspect against Defendant 1, and the evidence submitted by the Defendant [one copy of the photograph of mark (A) and one copy of the trademark registration (registration number 2 omitted)] are as follows. In other words, Defendant 1 registered the product registration number (registration number 2 omitted) with respect to the trademark of SYBIOSE, etc., and Defendant 1 appears to have been aware of the fact that it was difficult for the Defendant to use the trademark as a means of sale of the above 0-day product by the investigation agency to find that it was difficult for the Defendant to find that the Defendant was not guilty of using the above 0-day product as a means of sale on the rear side and chest 1’s own, and that it was difficult for the Defendant to use the trademark as a means of sale on the designated product of the above 10-day product (the above 10-day product type is inconsistent with the registered trademark of the Defendant 1, but it seems that it was difficult for the Defendant to use it as a means of sale on the part of the general consumers.)

B. Judgment of the court below

In light of the above, the court below's finding of facts and the selection and judgment of evidence which had been completed in the process is justified, and the court below's finding of facts as not guilty does not seem to have any errors of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding facts as pointed out by the prosecutor. Thus, the prosecutor's above assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, since the prosecutor's appeal of this case is without merit, it is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Kim Jong-soo (Presiding Judge)