The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the court below found that the damage product of this case is a product with considerable well-knownness in the relevant market area and that the defendant's packaging is identical with the damaged product and caused confusion as a result of copying the characteristics sufficient to cause confusion. However, the court below found the defendant not guilty of the facts charged of this case, which erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act (hereinafter "Unfair Competition Prevention Act"), which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. The prosecutor argued that the judgment below also obtained the discrimination characteristics on the packaging of the product like the reasons for appeal in this case, such as the appearance, form, and color of the damaged product. The court below rejected the prosecutor's assertion in detail by stating the judgment in Paragraph 3 of the judgment. The following circumstances, which can be recognized by the court below and the court below's duly adopted and investigated evidence, are ① the mark used in the damaged product and the mark used in the product of this case sold by the defendant, and the appearance, name, and concept are substantially the same.

Even if the trademark of this case is used as a product mark, it is difficult to deem that the trademark of this case was widely known in the Republic of Korea as the business mark of the victim company even if it was used as a product mark, in light of the period of use, sales, the quantity and contents of advertising campaign, and the nature of the product, etc. of the victim company's above mark (hereinafter "the mark of this case").

Even if there is no proof that the instant product sold by the Defendant is not genuine or differs in quality from the damaged product sold by the victim company.