All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles are the grounds for appeal. The Defendant’s assertion is that the Defendant’s act of using the Uknovas, etc. as a design does not constitute trademark infringement in light of the previous legal principles, and thus, the Defendant’s assertion can be viewed as misapprehension of legal principles.

The facts are examined together with the misunderstanding of legal principles.

The defendant walk U.S. teyd

The use of business without the permission of the business is consistent, but it does not constitute a trademark infringement because it is not simply intended to deceive others by causing confusion with the source indication, but is used as a design.

2) The punishment of the lower court is too heavy.

B. Prosecutor 1) The misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles cited by the prosecutor on the grounds of appeal. The prosecutor’s assertion constitutes an unlawful exercise of private documents, since the Defendant’s act of using the right to use and using a receipt that can be called a specified document constitutes an unlawful exercise of private documents. Thus, in full view of the foregoing, the misapprehension of legal principles can be asserted.

The facts are examined together with the misunderstanding of legal principles.

The receipt is a private document with regard to the proof of facts in which the licensee and the use are specified, and thus, it is illegal to use the private document. However, the defendant submitted a receipt for the purchase of clothes owned by the victim E to the Korean Intellectual Property Tribunal as evidence.

2) Undue sentence of the lower court is too minor.

2. Determination

A. 1) As to the Defendant’s assertion of mistake and misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the use of another’s registered trademark on goods identical with or similar to the designated goods constitutes an act of infringing another’s trademark right. However, even if a trademark is used on another’s registered trademark, it does not aim at indicating the source that it is an essential function of the trademark.