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

The defendant is a person who sells forged clothing with the trade name "D" in the second floor of Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Nowon-gu Officetel.

In around 13:00 on May 18, 2018, the Defendant: (a) stored the goods of the trademark right holder for the purpose of selling clothing 71 points (21,973,00 won at the fixed market price) as indicated in the attached list of crimes, such as the box attached to the Republic of Korea, on which the Defendant: (b) kept the goods of the trademark right holder for the purpose of selling clothes 71 points (21,973,000 won at the fixed market price) of Japan; (c) U.S. “Bab B&D”; and (d) Cambodian’s designated goods of the Republic of Korea to the Korean Intellectual Property Office as sack, bru, etc.; and (d) registered with the Korean Intellectual Property Office in the Republic of Korea as Paris, bru, bru, etc.; and (e) infringed the trademark right of the trademark right holder.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. E statements;

1. Police seizure records;

1. A written appraisal;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes of the Trademark Registration Register;

1. Selection of each of the provisions of Article 230 of the Trademark Act (limited to each registered trademark) and imprisonment with prison labor as to facts constituting an offense;

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 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the suspended execution;

1. The Defendant’s crime of sentencing on Article 236(1) of the Confiscation Trademark Act is an infringement on the trademark right by keeping counterfeit goods of a well-known trademark for sale. It is not good in that the quantity and value of the forged goods have reached a considerable degree.

Such a crime is likely to infringe on the business reputation of the owner of a trademark right by using the registered trademark formed by the failure of investment and effort of the owner of the trademark right without permission, to disturb the fair market order, and to inflict damage on the good consumers and to impair the trust of the trademark.

Since the defendant again committed the crime of this case despite the criminal history of the same kind of crime, there is a high possibility of criticism.

However, the defendant makes a statement to the effect that he is aware of and against the crime in this court.