All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The judgment of the court below which found the Defendants guilty of the facts charged is erroneous in misunderstanding of facts, in the absence of a criminal intent to make the Defendants confused with F’s business activities, or a criminal intent to impair the distinctiveness or reputation of the F’s mark.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendants (a fine of three million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below regarding the assertion of mistake of facts, i.e., ① the name “G” in the name of the Defendant Company itself, and there is a high possibility that the Defendant Company may be interpreted as “company using the technology developed by the F” or “company using the technology developed by the F” in the average perspective of ordinary people, ② the signboard of the Defendant Company’s “D” franchise store operated by the Defendant Company and the products manufactured by the Defendant Company are indicated to be particularly contained in the name of the Defendant Company, and thus, the Defendants can be recognized to have been aware of the most important part of the entire trade name, in light of the fact that the Defendants are confused with F’s business activities and damaged the distinctiveness or reputation of the mark, and thus, the Defendants’ assertion of mistake of facts is without merit.

B. The Defendants’ decision on the assertion of unfair sentencing was made in the trial and changed the company’s trade name through the resolution of the general meeting of shareholders, and the fact that there was no previous error is favorable to the Defendants.

The fact that the defendants received profits by using the trade name that could lead to confusion with the F's business activities for a considerable period is disadvantageous to the defendants.

In full view of the aforementioned circumstances and other factors, such as the motive, means, and consequence of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, etc., the sentencing of the lower court is too remote and discretionary.