All appeals filed by the prosecutor against the Defendants are dismissed.

1. In full view of the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor’s summary of the grounds for appeal (fact-finding) by the Prosecutor, the Defendants are found to have had dolusent intent to the effect that the visibility 163 points (hereinafter “clocks”) attached with a forged trademark identical or similar to “BURRY (Registration Number: No. 566243),” which is a trademark right holder’s registered trademark, was a forged trademark.

Therefore, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is Defendant A’s representative director, and Defendant B is a corporation established for the purpose of trade business of clothes and fashioning.

1) Defendant A around May 14, 201, at the Incheon Central Customs Office located in Jung-gu Incheon, Jung-gu, Incheon (hereinafter “E”) around May 14, 201, Defendant A is the export company of this case.

(2) Through BURBERY (Registration Number: No. 56243) (“Defendant Company B”) imported 160,420,00 won in total at the 163 clocks with a forged trademark of the same or similar pattern as the trademark owner’s trademark for sale, and infringed the trademark right of the said trademark owner. (2) The Defendant Company B, a defendant’s employee, infringed the trademark right of the said trademark owner as above in relation to the Defendant’s business at the same time and at the same place as the above. (b) In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court, it is difficult to readily conclude that the Defendant was guilty of the facts charged of this case on the ground that the visibility of this case was a forged product that infringed the trademark right. (1) Defendant B (hereinafter “Defendant Company”).

3,262.68 U.S. dollars [35,591,067 U.S. Company] 33,262.68 U.S. dollars from the exporters of the instant case.