Article 2 subparagraph 5 of the former Unfair Competition Prevention Act (amended by Act No. 3897 of Dec. 31, 1986) means the meaning of "advertising which misleads people to misunderstand the quality, content, or quantity of the product".

In the suspension of Article 2 subparagraph 5 of the former Unfair Competition Prevention Act (amended by Act No. 3897 of Dec. 31, 1986), the term "advertising that may mislead people into the quality, content, or quantity of the product" means advertisements of products such as false advertisements or exaggerated advertisements that cause misconceptions as to the quality, etc. of the product. However, even if a product of another person was printed and distributed in a Pample as if it was one's own product, if it did not bear any indication as to the quality, etc. of the product, it constitutes "the misrepresentation of another person's product" as provided in the former part of the same subparagraph, and it does not constitute "advertising that misleads the people into the quality, etc.

Article 2 subparag. 5 of the former Unfair Competition Prevention Act (amended by Act No. 3897 of Dec. 31, 1986)

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney Full-time

Seoul Criminal Court Decision 86No7944 delivered on June 25, 1987

The appeal is dismissed.

As to the Grounds of Appeal:

1. The judgment of the court below and the judgment of the court of first instance find that the defendant had the purpose of unfair competition in printing and distributing it by affixing a photograph as if the defendant was the product produced by the defendant, as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, that there was no illegality of recognizing the criminal intent without any evidence.

The issue is groundless.

2. In the suspension of Article 2 subparagraph 5 of the former Unfair Competition Prevention Act (amended by Act No. 3897 of Dec. 31, 1986), the term "advertising that misleads the quality, content, or quantity of the product" refers to a case where, in advertising a product, it makes an indication, etc. that may misleads the quality, etc. of the product, such as a false advertisement or an exaggerated advertisement, etc., in advertising a product. Even if the product of another person was printed and distributed in a PP as if it was its own product, if it did not put any indication as to the quality, etc. of the product, it constitutes a case where "the misrepresentation of another person's product" as provided in the former part of the same subparagraph is not applicable.

The court below determined that the defendant's act constitutes a case where "proving a misunderstanding about the quality of goods" constitutes a case where the above legal principles are erroneous. However, as seen above, the defendant's act constitutes a case where "the other person's goods are misrepresentation" and the crime not only constitutes a crime where "the other person's goods are misrepresentation," but the two crimes are punished in the same law as the nature of the crime is identical, and thus, the above error of law of the court below does not affect the conclusion

3. Therefore, this appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Sang-won (Presiding Justice)