The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the fact that the defendant imported the imported goods of this case as stated in the facts charged of this case and infringed trademark rights for the trademark, and the distribution company's confirmation of facts that "the goods to be delivered to the territory of the Republic of Korea were delivered to the defendant erroneously" submitted by the defendant cannot be believed in light of the time difference between the time of delivery of the imported goods of this case and the time of preparation of the confirmation document.

2. Determination

A. As to the facts charged in this case, the lower court: (a) prepared a confirmation document to the effect that the police interrogation protocol against the Defendant denies the contents of the written investigation protocol against the Defendant; (b) it is insufficient to recognize that the Defendant had imported goods identical or similar to the registered trademark of another person; and (c) there is no other evidence to acknowledge that the Defendant had imported goods identical or similar to the registered trademark of another person, solely on the basis of other evidence submitted by the prosecutor, with the knowledge that the goods to be delivered to the Defendant were goods identical or similar to the registered trademark of another person.

B. Examining the above judgment of the court below in light of the records and legal principles of this case, a thorough examination of the above judgment of the court below is justified, and there is no error of mistake of facts as alleged by the prosecutor.

In particular, in relation to the defendant's criminal intent, the defendant did not know that the imported goods of this case contain a trademark, but only he had imported goods sent by the selling company, and the import declaration is filed by the defendant or received from the selling company.