The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Incheon District Court Panel Division.

A. Even if there is no confusion as to the origin of the product, if there is a concern for confusion as to the source of the product from the perspective of ordinary consumers, such as the acquisition of the product from the purchaser or the possibility of confusion as to the source of the product because of the product mark attached to the product by the third party, etc., the act of using such product mark or selling the product using such product mark constitutes “an act that causes confusion as to another person’s product” under Article 2 subparag. 1(a) of

원심과 제1심이 적법하게 채택하여 조사한 증거들에 의하면, 피고인이 판매한 이 사건 모조품 가방에는 피해자 C의 상품표지 “”와 거의 동일한 표장이 부착되어 있는 점, 피해자도 위와 같은 상품표지를 가방이나 핸드백 등에 사용하여 온 점, 피고인 스스로 그의 인터넷 쇼핑몰에 “이번에 야심차게 준비한 신상 비비안웨스트우* 디자인의 숄더백이야”라고 상품 설명을 기재하는 등 피고인도 이 사건 모조품 가방이 피해자 상품의 모조품임을 알고 있었던 점 등을 알 수 있다.

Examining these circumstances in light of the above legal principles, even though there is no possibility of confusion about the source of the goods of this case from the purchaser due to the circumstances stated in the judgment of the court below, since there is a concern for confusion about the source of the goods of this case from general consumers, such as taking over the goods of this case from the purchaser, or causing confusion about the source of the goods of this case by the third party, which the purchaser owns, the goods of this case may cause confusion about the source of the goods of this case. Thus, the sale of the goods of this case by the defendant constitutes "an act causing confusion with the goods of others" under Article 2 subparagraph 1 (a) of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act.

Nevertheless, the lower court may confuse the source of the goods by the buyer due to the circumstances stated in its reasoning.