The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 700,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles means using a trademark identical to another person’s registered trademark on goods similar to the designated goods or using a trademark similar to another person’s registered trademark on goods identical or similar

(Article 108(1)1 of the Trademark Act. The designated goods of the service mark of this case registered with the victim D of this case are "Japan-type city restaurant business, Japanese-type restaurant business, early beded restaurant business (Patent Office No. 43 and similar military code S 120602)." The Defendant runs an urban delivery business (the product classification No. 39 of the Patent Office and similar military code S080101). The urban delivery business is not a product similar to the designated goods of the service mark of this case.

Therefore, there was an image identical to the service mark of this case at the Defendant's store glass.

Even if the service mark of this case was used as similar goods for the designated goods, the Defendant did not infringe the victim’s service mark of this case.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine and thereby finding guilty.

B. The lower court’s sentence on the Defendant of unreasonable sentencing (one million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. We examine whether the defendant's "urban delivery business", which was conducted by the defendant as to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, is the designated goods of the service mark of this case, "Japan-type urban restaurant business" and "similar goods."

Whether the designated service business is similar or similar to the compared goods shall be determined on the basis of whether the goods are likely to be mistaken for the goods manufactured or sold by the same business entity. The similarity of the designated service business shall be determined in accordance with the general transaction norms in consideration of the nature and contents of the service provided, the means and place of provision, the service provider, the scope of the service provider, etc.

Supreme Court Decision 2002.1