The judgment below

The guilty part shall be reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,000,000.

except that this judgment.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the fact that one of the joint owners of the F’s “F” requires M not to delegate the use of a trademark to a third party, the Defendant was aware that the trademark right “F” was L, and M only allows the Defendant to use the “F” trademark in the sex exchange area, but did not allow the Defendant to use the “F” trademark in direct mountain, sex, and position areas. In light of the fact that the Defendant simply contacted L with the Defendant, and thus, the Defendant did not have to have the intention of trademark infringement, beyond the negligence of violating the duty to permit the use of the trademark.

B. In light of the legal principles, the lower court additionally demanded the subjective elements of “the purpose of infringing the trademark right holder’s trademark,” as to the violation of the Trademark Act, which is, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the violation of the Trademark Act, which does not fall

(c)

The punishment of the lower court (one million won in penalty) that is unfair in sentencing is too unhued and unfair.

2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

A. In full view of the circumstances indicated in its reasoning, the lower court determined that the Defendant intentionally committed an act of infringing on the victim’s trademark right at the time when the Defendant issued an “O” book as indicated in this part of the facts charged.

On the ground that it is difficult to see it, the lower court acquitted the charges of this case.

B. The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, namely, ① L and M as a joint trademark holder of F’s trademark right at the time of the transfer of F business rights and the delegation contract, were agreed that M cannot transfer its business rights and business partners to another person without L (Evidence No. 2, F business rights transfer and delegation contract No. 69). However, this is merely a private contract between L and M, and the Defendant was aware of the content of the said contract.

The defendant has no grounds to see that there is no "F" trademark right in an investigative agency.