The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

The Defendant agreed to supply the victim's cosmetics as well as other products. However, since the victim's trademark was stored and supplied in a container with the victim's trademark, there was no mistake or confusion about the victim's trademark in trading with I.

Therefore, the defendant did not infringe the trademark rights of the victim, and there was no intention to infringe the trademark rights.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which convicted the defendant of the facts charged of this case is erroneous by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, thereby affecting the conclusion

Judgment

The court below stated to the effect that the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, i.e., the defendant ordered 100 Pcosmetics E (I) to the prosecution, and the defendant sent it to the Changwon E by inserting the cosmetics (cosmetics made through other cosmetic manufacturers) on which he had already been in possession," and "I knew of the violation of trademark rights," and "I knew of the fact that I would like to not engage in a transaction with the client while hedging with the victim, and I discovered the fact that I would not engage in a transaction with the original E. Therefore, I used the cosmetics with the victim." Thus, the defendant and I agreed that I would supply the cosmetics by inserting into the printed container, and the defendant would have known that such act was in violation of the victim's trademark rights, and the defendant did not modify the part of the cosmetics as stated in the facts charged in this case and did not supply the cosmetics to the manufacturer at all.