Defendant

A and B shall be punished by a fine of KRW 5 million, and Defendant C shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3 million.

1. The summary of the grounds of appeal did not intend to infringe upon the "J", which is a trademark registered by the victim H as the designated goods by the male Marina and sanitary protection unit, and the use of the above designated goods by the above defendants by the above defendants to Eul, which is similar to the "J", constitutes trademark infringement prohibited under the Trademark Act. The defendant's use of the trademark "J" does not constitute trademark infringement prohibited under the Trademark Act. The defendant's use of the product to the above designated goods did not pay the price to the defendants and did not accept the product in another place without paying it. The court below found the defendants guilty on the part of the legitimate act that does not violate the social rules.

In addition, the sentence of the lower court against the Defendants (the fine of KRW 8 million for each of the Defendants A, B, and the fine of KRW 5 million for Defendant C) is too unreasonable.

(F) Determination; 2. Determination

A. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below regarding the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, it is reasonable to deem that the facts charged in this case are sufficiently recognized and that the crimes committed by Defendant A and B do not constitute justifiable acts.

① On September 24, 2009, the Defendant A and B attached at the request of L for the production of the victim’s OEM method to the products that were manufactured and kept by the victim’s OEM method, K may easily be seen as the “J” (hereinafter “the instant similar trademark”) that the victim registered as the designated goods on September 24, 2009 with the Human Marma Place Sanitary Protection (hereinafter “J”) as the designated goods. In the event the Defendant A distributed the instant similar trademark without the consent of the complainant (victim) in the prosecutor’s investigation, the Defendant A thought that the complainant’s trademark right and patent right may not be infringed upon if he/she distributed the instant similar trademark without the consent of the complainant (victim).

However, the complainant is scheduled.