The judgment below

Among them, it violates the Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act due to the dilution of well-known marks.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Even if the Defendant did not indicate the ratio of red ginseng concentration in the F (hereinafter “the instant red ginseng product”) capacity in the instant advertisement, or the scarcity content in the instant product itself, in light of the fact that products similar to the instant red ginseng product are actually sold in China through other companies, and the fact that the Defendant’s advertisement is close to the fact that the instant red ginseng product was advertised to manufacture the instant red ginseng product. In light of the fact that the instant red ginseng product is not indicated in the F (hereinafter “instant red ginseng product”), the instant advertisement misleads the Defendant into the quality and content of the instant red ginseng product.

It is difficult to deem that the false or exaggerated advertisement is likely to undermine the fair trade order.

B. Prosecutor 1) The Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act (hereinafter “Unfair Competition Prevention Act”) is based on the dilution of the so-called “dilution of the well-known mark.”

2) As to the registered red ginseng product of this case, the registered red ginseng product of this case (hereinafter referred to as “H”) is identical to the registered red ginseng product of this case

In light of the fact that the words “R” and “R” are similar to the R” and the words “R and H” are emphasized several times in the advertisement, it can be deemed that the phrase “R” written in the advertisement was used as a product mark or a business mark with the source identification function. Furthermore, the fraud is most false and its content is related to the product, and it constitutes a deception in fraud beyond the mere exaggerated advertising level. Nevertheless, the lower court rendered a judgment not guilty of the above violation of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act and the fraud and rendered a fine of KRW 15 million. Thus, the lower court’s sentencing is unreasonable as it is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Before deciding on the grounds for appeal for ex officio determination, the Defendant was in violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act at the Busan District Court on July 26, 2012.