All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The lower court found the Defendants guilty of the facts charged in the instant case on the ground that the Defendants’ trademark “,” “,” and “,” used by the Defendants are identical in sequence with the victim’s registered trademark “(registration number G),” “(registration number H)” (hereinafter “instant 1 and 2 registered trademark”) and the mark and the designated goods thereof are identical.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not exhaust all necessary deliberations, and did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the establishment of a crime of violating the Trademark Act due to trademark infringement, or by omitting judgment,

2. Where an act of infringing trademark rights under Article 230 of the Trademark Act continues to exist with respect to several registered trademarks, an offense is constituted by combining each of such registered trademarks; and

(see Supreme Court Decision 2009Do10759, Jul. 14, 2011). However, if several trademarks were violated at the same time by an act of using a similar trademark, each offense of violating the Trademark Act is in a mutually competitive relationship.

According to the above legal principle, among the facts charged in this case, the crime of violating the Trademark Act due to the infringement of the first registered trademark of this case and the crime of violating the Trademark Act due to the infringement of the second registered trademark of this case are one comprehensive crime. Defendant A simultaneously infringed on the first registered trademark of this case and the second registered trademark of this case due to the use of a single similar trademark of this case. Thus, the single comprehensive crime is one commercial concurrent crime under Article 40 of

Therefore, the lower court erred by deeming that one crime was constituted by combining each other’s infringement on each of the registered trademarks.

However, even if punishment is to be imposed on the most severe crime among the crimes of violation of each trademark law in accordance with Article 40 of the Criminal Code, the punishment and the punishment determined by the court below, resulting in any difference between the punishment and the punishment.