The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the prosecutor’s grounds of appeal (in fact-finding) did not confirm whether the trademark of this case was registered or not, even though the defendant was aware of the indication of the J's trademark attached to the instant beds (hereinafter “J”) itself, it is recognized as willful negligence in relation to the infringement of trademark rights.

In addition, the trademark of this case can be seen as a trademark widely recognized domestically.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts, thereby having found the Defendant not guilty of the facts charged.

2. Determination:

A. We examine the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below as to the violation of the Trademark Act and the evidence adopted and examined by the court below. The court below is just in finding the defendant not guilty of violating the Trademark Act among the facts charged of this case on the grounds that it is difficult to view the defendant as a criminal intent against the infringement of the trademark right of this case on the grounds that there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, and there is no error as alleged in the grounds for appeal

B. As to the violation of the Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act (hereinafter “Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act”), the issue of whether a mark indicating another person’s goods is widely known in the Republic of Korea is based on the period of use, method, mode, quantity of use, scope of transaction, etc., and whether it is objectively widely known under the ordinary social norms (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2003Do7827, Apr. 13, 2006; 2007Do10562, Sept. 11, 2008). Meanwhile, in a case where a certain product’s form has the function of indicating the origin of the product and acquires the well-knownness, it constitutes “a mark indicating another person’s goods widely known in the Republic of Korea” under Article 2 subparag. 1(a) of the Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act, and thus, protection under the same Act may be obtained in comparison with other similar goods.