The judgment of the first instance shall be reversed.

The sentence of sentence against the defendant shall be suspended.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles 1) Chapter 1 Chapter Defendant is the service mark right as stated in the facts charged (hereinafter “instant service mark right”) or “instant service mark right.”

(2) The judgment of the court of first instance that found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in violation of the Trademark Act does not have any intention to infringe on the trademark right. However, the judgment of the court of first instance that found the Defendant guilty does not belong to the right to service mark stated in the facts charged to B, and even if the shares are reverted to 50%, the judgment of the court of first instance that found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in violation of the Trademark Act based on the premise that the complainant can exercise the right to service mark solely.

B. The judgment of the court of first instance on the defendant's grounds of unfair sentencing (the fine of KRW 700,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on misconception of facts or misapprehension of legal principles

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court of first instance as to Chapter 1, it is recognized that the defendant operated a restaurant using the service mark of this case, even after the defendant notified that the franchise agreement with the complainant is terminated as shown in the facts charged.

As long as factual relations are identical, disputes related to the service mark right of this case between the defendant and his defense counsel and G, etc. cannot be seen as related to the defendant's intentional infringement on the service mark right of this case. Thus, the above assertion is without merit without further review.

B. As to Chapter 2, insofar as no evidence exists to deem that the instant service mark right does not belong to the complainant, as alleged by the Defendant and his defense counsel, the above assertion is without merit without further need to be determined.

Even if the defendant and his defense counsel asserted, there was no share in the service mark right of this case.