The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant shall be innocent.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant: (a) was aware of the fact that C lent part of the factory of Company B to C and invested KRW 161 million; (b) but C did not know of the fact that it produced a fuel pen and a fuel pen in violation of the Trademark Act.

B. The sentence of the lower court (one year and six months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, and 160 hours of community service order) against an unfair defendant in sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. The Defendant in the facts charged in the instant case is the representative director of B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “B”) that produces automobile parts, such as automobile fuel pen, and C is employed by the Defendant and operated B with monthly salary. D is a person who mediates the export of automobile parts between the manufacturer and the exporter in the actual representative interest of E Co., Ltd. established for the purpose of manufacturing automobile parts.

No person shall commit an act of causing confusion with another person's goods by using any product identical or similar to another person's trademark widely known in the Republic of Korea, or by selling any product using such product.

Although the Defendant, G, and C did not have concluded a contract with H Co., Ltd. for the manufacture of fuel pen and string, or for the manufacture of products using the above company’s registered trademark, the Defendant, G, and C did not have concluded a contract for the establishment of a trademark exclusive use right to use the trademark so that they may manufacture the products using the above company’s registered trademark, the Defendant, G, and C requested for the manufacture of the fuel pen and the 100,000 piece of paper in the original form, identical or similar to the registered trademark (trademark registration number J) of the victim H Co., Ltd., which was widely known to C in the Republic of Korea around September 2016.