The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts, misunderstanding of the law, and improper sentencing);

A. The visibility itself, which was sold by the Defendant by mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, does not indicate a trademark registered as a trademark or a trademark itself similar thereto, and the Defendant merely advertised by using the expression “E”, and such act does not constitute an infringement of trademark rights.

B. The punishment sentenced by the first instance court (2 million won in penalty) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts and legal principles, the summary of the facts charged in the instant case is that “The Defendant infringed the victim’s trademark right by displaying and displaying a trademark similar to the victim’s registered trademark in the advertisements using the word “E” on the hand-on sales advertisement of the D Home shopping mall operated by himself from the early police officer from August 2012 to the early police officer from the early June 2016.”

2) Article 66(1)1 of the former Trademark Act (amended by Act No. 14033, Feb. 29, 2016; hereinafter the same) provides that “an act of 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 with or similar to the designated goods.” Article 2(1)7(c) of the same Act provides that “an act of displaying or distributing a trademark by indicating the trademark on goods advertisements, price lists, documents, signboards, or labels in the form of “use of the trademark” in the form of “use of the trademark.”

Therefore, even if no registered trademark or similar trademark is indicated in the product itself, an act of indicating and displaying a trademark similar to another person’s registered trademark in the advertisement on goods identical with or similar to the designated goods also constitutes “an act of infringing trademark” under the above Act.

3) The health team and the first instance court duly adopted and investigated the instant case.