If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.

The Defendant is a person who operated the Kakao Scarto “C” at the Defendant’s office located in Chuncheon City B, 102 Dong 308.

No person shall use a trademark identical with another person's registered trademark on goods similar to the designated goods, or use a trademark similar to another person's registered trademark on goods identical with or similar to the designated goods.

Nevertheless, on July 5, 2015, the Defendant sold to D a total of 40 points (5,275,000 won in total) of products bearing a forged trademark, such as the trademark registration mark, which is a trademark right holder’s registration trademark of Losch Rexroth (No. 0012364), from June 1, 2015 to December 9, 2015, the trademark right of the said trademark holder was infringed upon by selling the trademark right of the said trademark holder by selling a total of 40 points (5,275,00 won in total) of products bearing a forged trademark, such as the trademark registration mark in the attached list of crimes, from June 1, 2015 to December 9, 2015.

Summary of Evidence

1. The defendant's oral statement in the first trial record;

1. E statements;

1. A certified copy of each original register of trademark registration;

1. A letter on the goods sold by a seller, and a photograph of the complainant;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to inquiries about facts;

1. Article 93 of the former Trademark Act (amended by Act No. 13848, Jan. 27, 2016; hereinafter “former Trademark Act”) and Article 93 of the former Trademark Act (amended by Act No. 13848, Jan. 27, 201) regarding criminal facts,

1. The former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the same Act, which aggravated concurrent crimes;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. The reason for sentencing of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Provisional Payment Order is an unfavorable sentencing factor against the defendant in light of the number of registered trademarks infringed in this case, the size of the goods on which the forged trademark handled is attached, etc.

On the other hand, it seems that the defendant has divided his wrong and reflects his wrong, and that the defendant is the primary offender who has no criminal history, etc. is an element of sentencing favorable to the defendant.

(b) other.