The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,000,000.

The defendant does not pay the above fine.

1. The summary of the grounds of appeal is that U (V) of T Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “T”) with the exclusive license granted by H (hereinafter “H”) as the owner of the trademark “E” (hereinafter “registered trademark”) is also the representative of W Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “W”). The above W is a foreign owner of the trademark “E” (hereinafter “registered trademark”) and “Sweden manufacturing company”, a foreign owner of the trademark “E” (hereinafter “registered trademark”).

From this point of view, the 'Cheongbababab' produced by attaching the trademark of use by the company is called the 'Cheongbababa'.

H and Sweden manufacture company is a company acquiring the right in the Republic of Korea. Since H and Sweden manufacture company are closely related to the legal and economic aspects by mediating T, U, and W in order, and as long as both the Cheongba imported and sold by U, the actual exclusive licensee of the above registered trademark, and the Cheongba in this case imported by the Defendant are produced by Sweden manufacture company and its source is the same, the Defendant’s Cheongba import is a concurrent import permitted, not a trademark infringement.

In the statement of grounds of appeal, the Defendant does not sell in Korea the Cheongba with which a domestic trademark holder attached the trademark of this case, and widely distributes the Cheongba with the trademark of this case domestically, and the Defendant is merely one of multiple concurrent importers who concurrently import the Cheongba in this case. However, the Defendant’s punishment for the Defendant is unreasonable solely on the ground that the domestic trademark holder registered the trademark of this case which is not actually used. However, the above ground of appeal does not fall under the grounds of appeal under each subparagraph of Article 361-5 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and therefore, the above argument

2. Review of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court and the first instance court is as follows.