The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant shall be innocent.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles) is that electronic tobacco imported and sold by the Defendant is a genuine product produced by China’s “Jyech Elecreron Co., Ltd. and Ltd” (hereinafter “the headquarters of the instant headquarters”), and the Defendant’s act constitutes a concurrent import of authentic products, and thus, constitutes a contract for domestic monopoly sales of the electronic tobacco, etc. at the headquarters of the instant headquarters, and does not infringe upon the trademark rights of Yoyecom Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “victim”).

2. Summary of the facts charged in this case and the judgment of the court below

A. The summary of the facts charged of the instant case is that a trademark identical or similar to another person’s registered trademark is not used for goods identical or similar to the designated goods without permission, but the Defendant, from March 18, 2015 to July 31, 2015, imported electronic tobacco from Ulsan-gu to July 31, 2015 to sell it through the Internet shopping mall. On December 8, 2011, the victim’s meeting, registered with the Korean Intellectual Property Office under Article 0893506, imported the electronic tobacco bearing the trademark “Jyeco” from China and posted the said “Jyeco” trademark on the Internet homepage, thereby infringing the victim’s trademark right.

B. The lower court’s determination reveals that, according to the outcome of the verification of the authenticity of the products of the electronic tobacco produced by the Defendant, the electronic tobacco imported by the Defendant is not a genuine product, the electronic tobacco imported by the Defendant is confirmed to be not a genuine product, the document stating the confirmation result, the photograph of the object of appraisal, and the lack of explanation about the appraisal process or method, etc., but there is no discovery of any circumstance to suspect the conclusion itself, and the Defendant was imported through the company “G” which acquired the Chinese sales right from the head office of the Chinese Cho special case.