The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 5,000,000.

The defendant does not pay the above fine.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As to the mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, the trademark subject to infringement of this case was identically reproduced in Japan a trademark of goods produced and sold in Japan, and the decision invalidating the registration of the trademark subject to infringement became final and conclusive, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, which found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged, even though it cannot be deemed that the trademark subject to

B. The sentence of a fine of KRW 10 million imposed by the lower court on the grounds of unfair sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Even if the act of infringing another person’s right to registered trademark as to the assertion of mistake of facts, etc. was conducted before the trial decision invalidating the registration becomes final and conclusive, if the trial decision invalidating trademark registration becomes final and conclusive, the trademark right was not existed from the beginning, and such act cannot be deemed as a trademark infringement.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2005Do476, Feb. 23, 2006; 93Do839, May 16, 1996). According to the records, the Patent Tribunal rendered a trial ruling that trademark rights subject to the instant infringement should be invalidated on March 17, 2016, and the said trial ruling became final and conclusive on April 19, 2016.

Therefore, since trademark rights subject to the infringement of this case did not exist from the beginning, the act identical to this part of the facts charged by the defendant that infringed trademark rights cannot be deemed as the infringement of trademark rights subject to the infringement of this case.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment, and the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on each of the charges charged and the offense of violating the Customs Act, as indicated in the former part of Article 37.