The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor on the gist of the grounds of appeal, the instant golf loans imported by the Defendant are not the authentic products produced in the U.S. D golf companies, and even if they were manufactured in the U.S. D golf companies, there is a functional difference compared with the G golf loans manufactured and sold by the F (F Co., Ltd. E).

As long as recognized, the Defendant’s act of importing and selling the instant golf loans does not constitute “a concurrent importation of authentic products” in which illegality is excluded.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby acquitted the Defendant on the ground that the Defendant’s act stated in the facts charged constituted “Concurrent importation of authentic goods

2. Determination

(a) The act of importing goods identical with or similar to the designated goods on which a trademark identical or similar to the trademark registered in Korea is attached does not constitute an infringement of the registered trademark right;

In order to establish a trademark, ① the owner of a foreign trademark or a legitimate licensee should have attached the trademark to the imported goods; ② the trademark holder of the foreign trademark and the registered trademark holder of the Republic of Korea are closely related to legal or economicly, or a trademark attached to the imported goods under other circumstances can be seen as indicating the same source as the registered trademark of the Republic of Korea; ③ the imported goods and the goods on which the trademark holder of the Republic of Korea attached the registered trademark shall not have any substantial difference in their quality (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2002Da61965, Jun. 9, 2005; 2010Do790, May 27, 2010).

F. F. G. H. sell by itself.