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

No person may use a service mark identical to another person's registered service mark for goods identical with or similar to the designated goods.

On February 8, 2009, the victim C applied for service mark D for service business, including Chinese restaurant business, and registered as a service mark (registration number E) with the Korean Intellectual Property Office on April 13, 2010.

From September 4, 2013, the Defendant received a written notification from the victim that the trade name, etc. used by the Defendant from the victim infringes on the victim’s service mark, and that it should not be used any more because it constitutes a violation on the victim’s service mark.

Nevertheless, from that time until March 27, 2015, the Defendant infringed on the victim’s service mark by using the service mark “D” in the above Chinese restaurant in the signboard, mer new plate, etc.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the suspect interrogation protocol of the defendant by the prosecution;

1. Statement to C by the police;

1. - Original Register of service marks registered;

1. - A notice (In light of the above evidence, after receiving a notice from the Defendant that the Defendant would not use the service mark “D” around January 24, 2014, the Defendant would not use the service mark, and then at least dolusent intent is recognized as to the Defendant’s act of infringing the service mark).

1. Relevant Articles of the Act and Article 93 of the Trademark Act concerning facts constituting an offense;

1. Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the provisional payment order;