The defendant is innocent. The summary of this judgment shall be notified publicly.

1. The summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant is a person in charge of the business related to the sale of packaged meat, etc. in the E joint wholesale market located in the above company D, and the Defendant received a request for re-processing and packaging processing from the said company’s name from the said joint wholesale market, and the Defendant obtained a request for re-processing and packaging processing of packaged meat supplied by the said company to the Agricultural Cooperative. The Defendant, the registered trademark of the Nonghyup for which the said company had been granted a trade license from the Agricultural Cooperative, “FF Co., Ltd., without reporting the distribution business of livestock products to the competent authority, even if the trademark was attached to it,” and distributed and sold KRW 168,590,000 from November 20, 2015 to August 2016 at the said joint wholesale market.

2. Article 21 of the Livestock Products Sanitary Control Act delegates to Presidential Decree the detailed types and scope of business subject to reporting to the competent authorities pursuant to Article 24(1) of the same Act (in the absence of reporting, criminal punishment pursuant to Article 45(6)9 of the same Act). Accordingly, Article 21 subparag. 7(e) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act is accordingly delegated.

The title defines “sales business specializing in the distribution of livestock products” as the “business of distributing and selling processed or packaged livestock products using its own trademark by requesting the processing business operator of livestock products or the meat packaging business operator to process or pack the processed or packaged livestock products.”

The enforcement decree was newly established and enforced around May 9, 2008, and it was based on the new establishment that the purpose of sanitary management of livestock products sold by the distribution company as its own brand products.

On the other hand, the term "ordinary right to use" of a trademark is only the right of the trademark holder to use the registered trademark for goods designated within the scope set by the trademark holder (Article 97 of the Trademark Act), but it is not the ordinary right to use as in this case.