The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds of appeal (the factual error) acknowledges that the Defendant, from the I president of H (hereinafter “H”), a corporation with the authority to use the trademark of this case (E and registration number: F), the Defendant was aware that the Defendant, without the above I’s consent, supplied both horses on which the trademark of this case was attached, to G Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “G”) without permission, did not use the trademark of this case.

Therefore, the court below found the defendant not guilty on the ground that the defendant did not have the intention of violating the Trademark Act.

2. The lower court determined as follows, based on the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court: (a) the Defendant produced and supplied both horses at a Chinese factory; (b) the Defendant was a person who produces both horses at a Chinese factory; and (c) concluded a bilateral supply contract with K to supply them; and (d) the Defendant supplied both horses to H(I) for which the Defendant was entitled to use the trademark from L, a trademark holder of the instant trademark; and (b) the supply rate of H(I) and G did not coincide with each other due to changes in exchange rates; (b) H(I) the supply rate of the instant trademark was lower; and (c) the fact that H(I) and G (J (J) agreed to operate the instant trademark in the form of direct supply from the Defendant (the method of using the instant trademark was discussed with respect to the method of not using the instant trademark); and (c) the Defendant was a direct payment of the instant trademark to H(I) without any agreement.