The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. According to the summary of the grounds for appeal (the factual errors and misapprehension of the legal principle), the Defendant recognized the fact that the Defendant continued to use the victim’s trademark right even though he/she clearly knew that the agreement on additional or modified matters as of February 9, 2017 on the franchise agreement and the monetary loan agreement with the victim was not effective, and it also recognized that the Defendant had an intention to infringe on the trademark right.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. The lower court rendered a not guilty verdict on the instant facts charged on the grounds that it is difficult to view that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone was proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the Defendant had intentionally used the registered service mark with the intent to infringe trademark rights, and that there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

Examining the above judgment of the court below in comparison with the records, the judgment of the court below is justified. Contrary to the prosecutor's assertion, there is no error of law by misunderstanding facts or by misunderstanding the legal principles, which affected the conclusion

Therefore, prosecutor's assertion is without merit.

3. The prosecutor's appeal of conclusion is without merit, and it is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.