The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The misunderstanding of legal principles and the misunderstanding of facts in the first instance court found the Defendant guilty of violating the Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act, inasmuch as the act of using the trade name of the victim E company (hereinafter referred to as “D restaurant”) has no distinctiveness, etc. and the Defendant’s act of using the trade name of “D restaurant” is not likely to cause business errors and confusion, by misunderstanding the legal principles on the concept of well-knownness, etc. of “ widely known within the Republic of Korea” under the Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act

B. The sentencing of the first instance court on the unfair sentencing (the fine of 1.5 million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the misapprehension of legal principles and the assertion of mistake of facts, the meaning of "the mark indicating another person's business was widely known in the Republic of Korea" under Article 2 subparagraph 1 (b) of the Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act (hereinafter "the Unfair Competition Prevention Act") is not required to be known to all the people in the Republic of Korea, but it is sufficient to the extent known among the traders or consumers within a certain area in the Republic of Korea. Whether the widely known trade name is determined is objectively known to the general public in terms of social norms such as the period of use, method, mode, volume, quantity of use, scope of transaction, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2009Do1221, Apr. 28, 201; 2007Da12975, Aug. 20, 2009). Whether the similarity of business marks under Article 2 subparagraph 1 (b) of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act is likely to cause confusion or confusion between the general public and consumers in terms of appearance, concept, etc.