The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The gist of the grounds of appeal is as follows: (a) it is confirmed that there are a considerable number of winners of the charcoal on which the trademark of “HE” was indicated in the Defendant’s sales and warehouse; and (b) in the situation where the Defendant sold a large quantity of carbon, it is reasonable to view it as an expression of the Defendant’s perception that the trademark was sold by the Defendant even if the Defendant violated the trademark; (b) it is very important whether it was made by a company because it is a product that can be considerably different in terms of thermal power, noise and other quality depending on the place of production; (c) even according to the Defendant’s statement, it was perceived that there was transfer of the trademark indicating “HE” even in the Defendant’s statement; and (d) in the case of the photographs submitted by the Defendant, it is reasonable to deem that the Defendant erred in the judgment by misapprehending the Defendant’s intention on the part of the Defendant, even though it was not possible for the Defendant to gather that he was registered with the trademark.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is a person who operates and sells various charcoal in Ulsan-gu B.

No trademark identical or similar to another person's registered trademark shall be delivered, sold, counterfeited, counterfeited, or possessed for the purpose of using or making another person use such trademark on goods identical or similar to the designated goods.

Although the Defendant registered the trademark “Ishot” with the Korean Intellectual Property Office at the Korean Intellectual Property Office (U.S.), the Defendant himself/herself operates from September 2, 2014 to October 01, 2014.