If the defendant does not pay the above fine, the amount of KRW 100,000 shall be paid.

The Defendant is a person who sells female clothing in the store of "C" No. 160 of the 2nd floor of the Busan City, Jin-gu B market in Busan.

around 15:09 on August 17, 2017, the Defendant: (a) from a person engaged in an unexit supply in the above place, the Defendant: (b) stated that the Defendant: (c) the trademark owner was the French trademark owner “luxur lux lux lux,” (hereinafter “lux lux lux lux”), the English “luxur lux lux,” and the French “Nur urg urged at the time of lux lux,” designated the designated goods to the Korean Intellectual Property Office and registered with the Korean Intellectual Property Office as Scarf, Titts, (GUI); (b) BURRYS; and (c) transferred the remainder of the designated goods with the trademark attached in the same or similar trademark attached to KNNO (KNO); and (d) sold the goods at 150,000 won and supplied the remaining goods at 50,000 won of the market price as attached Table 506.

Accordingly, the defendant infringed the trademark rights of the above trademark right holders.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Protocols of seizure by prosecution;

1. Application of an investigation report (report accompanied by photographs, such as a lubal trademark attachment lux, a photofluor, etc.), investigation report (verification of the registration of a trademark), investigation report (verification of the market price of a fake trademark lubial, etc.), and statutes;

1. Article 230 of the relevant Act on criminal facts, Article 230 of the Trademark Act on the Selection of Punishment, and Selection of Fines;

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. Article 236(1) of the Trademark Act that is confiscated;

1. Even when considering the reasoning for sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, the Defendant is a primary offender and a small self-employed person, the number of goods violating the Trademark Act in which the Defendant was holding cannot be determined as excessive fines under the summary order.