The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of the legal principles) ① The Defendant indicated the “duplation” as “domestic origin” with respect to the “duplation,” and immediately failed to place a separate indication of origin as to the “duplation,” thereby constitutes an indication likely to cause confusion as to the origin,” and the Prosecutor falsely indicated the part of the facts charged in the judgment below in the attached Form on the grounds of appeal that “the Defendant caused confusion as to the overlapping of German swine as a domestic origin.”

The judgment of the court below and the first instance court determined not only whether the Defendant falsely indicated the origin in connection with the lush overlap but also whether there was a mark that may cause confusion as to the country of origin. As such, the legitimacy of the application for change is not determined.

(2) The phrase "domestic products" means those whose country of origin is disguisedly sold by the defendant to half members of the U.S. swine fever used in the kimchi dog.

Nevertheless, the court below rendered a not-guilty verdict. The court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles.

Judgment

The lower court, based on the judgment of the lower court, found the following facts: ① the Defendant indicated the “duplation” as “domestic origin” with respect to the “duplation,” under which the Defendant did not separately indicate the country of origin with respect to the “duplation,” and ② the type of duplation,” even though the structure of the Qua New Markets was different from the “duplation,” the Defendant did not indicate the country of origin with respect to the “duplation,” and indicated the false indication as a domestic origin with respect to the “duplation.”

It was determined that there was no possibility to view it.

In addition, "a mark that may cause confusion with the country of origin" is based on the premise that the country of origin was once marked.