However, the execution of the above sentence shall be suspended for a period of two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

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, the Defendant, from May 9, 2016 to November 9, 2016, opened and operated an online shopping mall in the Internet “NV” website in the name of “Stop” and “C” (web address - D) and sold 2,736 points for household goods, such as clothing goods with the trademark registered with the Korean Intellectual Property Office or a trademark similar thereto (a total of 227,582,050 won) to unspecified persons, thereby infringing on the trademark rights of each trademark holder.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. An appraisal statement, each registration register of trademarks, a summary of sales details, an investigation report (a statement on the computation of the fixed price of goods), and a list of the fixed price of goods;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes concerning the closure of the website;

1. Article 93 of the former Trademark Act (wholly amended by Act No. 14033, Feb. 29, 2016); Article 230 of each Trademark Act ( comprehensively including each of the remaining registered trademarks) and each of the two Articles (Article 230 of each Trademark Act (wholly amended by Act No. 14033, Feb. 29, 2016);

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. The reason for the sentencing of Article 62(1) of the suspended sentence under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act [the scope of the recommended sentence] There is no basic area (10 months to 2 years) (10 months to 10 years) (the special sentencing sentencing person) [the sentencing person] [the sentence] violation of the Trademark Act infringes on the legitimate rights of the trademark right holder, and at the same time it disturbs the market economy order and damages the consumer's trust, thereby impairing the quality of the crime.

However, there is no criminal record against the defendant, and there is no same kind of criminal record.

The defendant's product is a reproduction.