The appeal by the prosecutor is dismissed.

1. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, it is sufficiently recognized that the defendant used the trademark "H" similar to the trademark "Mauby-Cll" widely known in the Republic of Korea to cause confusion with the products produced and sold by the defendant with products produced and sold by the defendant as a victim company Audle Co., Ltd. (hereinafter "victim company").

2. Determination

A. The meaning of "the mark indicating another person's goods or business is widely known in the Republic of Korea" under Article 2 subparagraph 1 (a) and (b) of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act does not require that the mark "it is widely known in the Republic of Korea" is widely known to all people throughout the country's discharge. It is sufficient to the extent known among traders or consumers within a certain domestic area. Whether the mark is widely known is a widely known trademark or such shall be based on the period of use, method, pattern, quantity of use, scope of transaction, etc., the actual condition of the product transaction, and whether it is objectively widely known under the social norms (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2001Da76861, Sept. 26, 2003; 2007Da12975, Aug. 20, 2009).

The lower court determined as follows: ① (i) the time when the injured company applied for the trademark “Ruby-Cll” and the goods were sold were commenced on July 12, 2012; (ii) the Defendant’s commencement of the sale of H was merely six months prior to the date of January 1, 2013 (Evidence No. 14 pages, the trial records No. 75,85 pages); (iii) the total sales from March 5, 2012 to December 31, 2012 of the victimized company are 4.4 billion won; and (iv) the sales from the product to December 31, 2012 are deemed to be less than seven trillion won; (v) the total market size in the year of 2012 exceeds seven trillion won; and (v) the multi-level marketing method reaches KRW 78,000,000 among multiple functional cosmetics; and (v) the Defendant’s sales of the product is no more than one percent of the Defendant’s sales of the product at bar No. 1181,2181.