The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of 1.5 million won.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

A. Until July 13, 2018, before the defendant received a provisional disposition decision from the victim, there was no intention to infringe the trademark right of the victim by the defendant.

Since then, even if the defendant does not fully leave the door on the wall surface of the car page, it cannot be viewed as an infringement of the victim's trademark right.

In addition, although the defendant posted the photo on the Internet with the help of the employee at the time of the commencement of the business, the existence of the above bulletin itself was forgotten, so the above bulletin violated the victim's trademark right, there was no intention on the part of the defendant.

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case. In so doing, it erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (fine 3.5 million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

A. The lower court stated in the lower court that the Defendant recognized the instant facts charged in the court, and accordingly, the lower court convicted the Defendant of the instant facts charged by comprehensively taking account of the evidence, such as the Defendant’s statement in the court.

B. Comprehensively taking account of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the court below in accordance with the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, it is sufficiently recognized that the defendant received from the victim a certification of contents that the defendant would not use the trademark similar to the victim's registered trademark or service mark as stated in the facts constituting the crime of the court below, and the defendant continued to display the trademark similar to the victim's registered trademark on the wall operated by the defendant, and exposed the similar trademark on the Internet as a signboard of the above camera, thereby infringing the victim's trademark right

Therefore, this part of the defendant's argument is without merit.