Defendant 1 and one other

Defendants

Kim Young-young

Attorney Kim Jong-sung (Ap. for the defendant)

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2009Da6784 Decided June 29, 2010

All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of legal principles as to factual errors)

The primary pentle manufactured and sold by the Defendants does not constitute “other person’s goods” as the goods of the Defendants, and the Defendants’ act of indicating the manufacturing source as ○○○○○ materials on the goods labelling made by the Defendants constitutes an unfair competition act under Article 2 subparag. 1 (f) of the former Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act (amended by Act No. 9225, Dec. 26, 2008; hereinafter “former Unfair Competition Prevention Act”).

2. Determination

A. Relevant legal principles

Article 2 subparagraph 1 (f) of the former Unfair Competition Prevention Act provides that "any act of misrepresenting another person's goods, or selling, distributing, importing, or exporting goods with a publicity or mark that misleads another person as to the quality, content, manufacturing method, use, or quantity of the goods in the goods or advertisements thereof, or selling, distributing, importing, or exporting goods with such a mark or mark "an act of misleading the quality, content, manufacturing method, use, or quantity of the goods" means an act of falsely or exaggeratedly making a mark that causes general consumers to misunderstand the use of the goods, such as their characteristics and ingredients, such as quality, contents, manufacturing method, efficacy, and method of use (Supreme Court Decision 91Ma613 delivered on February 29, 1992).

B. Determination

According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the defendants entered into a contract on the supply of pentine from the victim's non-indicted 207 to the defendants. The victim's marking of the products affixed to the nose supplied by the victim is "○○○○, the location: the lot number 1 omitted in the Gyeonggi-do Jungnam-si." The defendants' act of selling the products was indicated as "the defendant 2 corporation, the location of the products: the defendant's marking of the products was not the fact that the defendants did not legally sell the products to the victim's business owner, and the defendant's act of selling the products to the non-indicted 2's business owner or the defendant's marking of the products to the non-indicted 2's business owner, and the defendant's act of selling the products to the non-indicted 2's business owner or the defendant's business owner's marking of the products to the non-indicted 2's business owner's marking of the products." The defendant's act of selling the products to the non-indicted 2's business owner.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the defendants' appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, since all of the appeals by the defendants are without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Kim Jong-ho (Presiding Judge)