beta
Text
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. The summary of the grounds of appeal reveals that Defendant A purchased the instant mobile phone case, which is a finished product, even though he could purchase only the “sururgy panel” panel, and the Defendants purchased 10 cell phone cases according to the 12 color, the Defendants cannot be deemed to have imported as sampling for manufacturing a mobile phone case, and the Internet shopping mall, the Internet shopping mall, is entirely open to the public, in full view of the following: (a) the Defendant A purchased the instant mobile phone case, which is a finished product; (b) the Defendants purchased 10 cell phone cases according to the 12 color; and (c) the Defendant’s Internet shopping mall, is not deemed to have imported as sampling for manufacturing a mobile phone case; and (d) the Defendant
Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the Defendants of all the facts charged is erroneous.
2. The summary of the facts charged is a person who works as an agent for a stock company B located in Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and Defendant B (F) is a corporation corporation incorporated mainly for the business of manufacturing renewableer, etc., and is not allowed to use a trademark identical with another person’s registered trademark on goods similar to the designated goods or use a trademark similar to another person’s registered trademark on goods identical with or similar to the designated goods;
Nevertheless, Defendant A imported, on June 11, 2014, the amount equivalent to KRW 120,440,000 in the market value of red cell phone case and KRW 4,40,000 in the domestic market and thereby infringed on the trademark right holder’s trademark right by importing, through the Incheon Airport Customs Office, Samsung Electronic Co., Ltd. as the designated goods, “SAP UNG case” registered with the Korean Intellectual Property Office (Registration No. 0817494), using the trademark “SASP” (Registration No. 081744) as the designated goods by Defendant A as the Defendant’s trademark owner.
Defendant
B (Representative F) Defendant A, who is an employee of the company, committed a violation such as the above mentioned in relation to the business of the company.
3. The lower court’s determination is based on the evidence duly admitted and investigated, as follows, and ① Defendant 1.