The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant shall be innocent.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts) is as follows: (a) the Defendant did not misrepresent another person’s goods as stipulated in the former part of Article 2 subparag. 1(f) of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act; and (b) although there was no possibility of mistake as stipulated in the latter part of Article 2 subparag. 1(f

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged is as follows: (a) from July 2, 2015 to April 30, 2016, the Defendant operated an agency that sells the manufacture and import products of Company G with the trade name of Company F in the business name from Seocheon-si, Seocheon-si, Busan to the business territory of Company F; and (b) Company G entered into a domestic monopoly sales contract with the German “GEA Ecofex” and sold the “NT-150L” heat exchange machine from Company G.

No person shall misrepresent another person's goods, or advertise or put a mark that leads any misunderstanding about the quality, content, manufacturing method, use, or quantity of goods in any goods or advertisement thereof, or sell, distribute, import, or export goods using such method or mark.

Nevertheless, the Defendant, around December 28, 2015, indicated the product name “NT-150L” in the German “H” on two heat exchange machines produced through a manufacturer that could not know the name at the F Office of the said F Office, and sold approximately KRW 3,382,000 to G, thereby causing damage to the Defendant.

B. In light of the following circumstances that can be seen by comprehensively taking into account each of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court’s respective pictures, images, witness I’s legal statement, etc., the Defendant, in violation of Article 2 subparag. 1(f) of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act, committed the instant act by misrepresenting the Defendant as a product of GEA, or by misrepresenting the Defendant as a product of GEA on December 28, 2015, or by allowing consumers to confuse the Defendant’s products sold by the Defendant as products of GEA.

The recognition is insufficient, and it is different.