The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

The court below found the defendant not guilty on the grounds of violation of the Trademark Act, and violation of the Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act due to the reproduction of goods manufactured by another person, and found the defendant guilty on the facts of the crime in relation to the commercial competition.

On the other hand, the defendant appealed on the ground of mistake of facts about the guilty part, and the prosecutor did not separately appeal the acquittal part of the reasons. The verdict of innocence part of the reasons due to the principle of indivation of appeal has already been judged in the trial, but it has already been relieved from the object of attack and defense between the parties.

Therefore, the scope of the judgment of this court is limited to the remainder except the acquittal part of the judgment of the court below, and the judgment of the court below on the acquittal part of the reasoning of the court below is not separately determined by the court below.

2. The gist of the grounds for appeal lies in the fact that the trademark (G) of the victim D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “victim Co., Ltd.”) was registered.

Therefore, the Defendant did not have any intention to misrepresentate another’s goods as prohibited under Article 2 subparag. 1f. of the Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act (hereinafter “Unfair Competition Prevention Act”).

In addition, the misrepresentation of another person's goods under the Unfair Competition Prevention Act is a premise for the identity of the product, and the work process produced by the defendant and the work process produced by the damaged company are not the same.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found this part of the facts charged guilty is erroneous in misconception of facts and misapprehension of legal principles.

3. Determination

A. First of all, in determining the absence of intention, the Defendant was unaware of the existence of the trademark of the victimized company, and thus, the Defendant was aware of another’s goods prohibited by the Unfair Competition Prevention Act.