The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The sentence of sentence against the defendant shall be suspended.

1. Summary of the grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant merely expressed both the U.S., Chile, and North Korea in accordance with the response of public officials viewing the astronomical Viewing and viewing the origin, and there was no perception of illegality. Therefore, there was no intention to place a mark likely to cause confusion as to the origin.

B. Indications that may cause confusion as to the origin refer to “where many countries indicate the origin, and actually sells only the country whose price of raw materials is lower or the consumer evades,” and the Defendant did not put an indication that may cause confusion as to the origin as it used the U.S. acid, Chile Industry, and North Korea’s U.S. acid, which is the most wird and friendly for consumers to confuse the origin.

2. Determination

A. Article 16 of the Criminal Act provides that an act of misunderstanding that one’s own act does not constitute a crime under the law shall not be punishable only when the misunderstanding is based on a reasonable ground. In general, it is generally a crime, but it is recognized that one’s own act does not constitute a crime as permitted by the law in his own special circumstances, and that such misunderstanding does not constitute a crime if there are justifiable grounds for misunderstanding

(See Supreme Court Decision 91Do2525 delivered on May 22, 1992, and Supreme Court Decision 2000Do1696 delivered on January 25, 2002, etc.). Whether there exists justifiable reason should be determined depending on whether an actor was unable to recognize the illegality of his/her own act as a result of failing to perform his/her duty despite the possibility that he/she could have known the illegality of his/her own act if he/she had failed to perform his/her duty to do so. The degree of efforts necessary for recognizing the illegality is specific.