However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

The defendant is an old-age shop.

No one shall deliver, sell, forge, imitate, or possess a trademark identical with or similar to the registered trademark of another person for the purpose of using or making another person use such trademark on goods identical with or similar to the designated goods.

Nevertheless, the defendant around 23:50 on February 10, 2016, at the street store in front of Jung-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, Jung-gu, Seoul, the victim's age kidianist.

C. “NIKE,” which is a trademark registered by the Korean Intellectual Property Office as No. 009493, attached a trademark identical or similar to “NIKE” to the Korean Intellectual Property Office, and the victim ADAS ADS, which is a trademark registered by the Korean Intellectual Property Office as No. 016078, carried it in order to sell it to many and unspecified persons, thereby infringing the trademark rights of the victims, respectively.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. On-site photographs;

1. Records of seizure and the list of seizure;

1. Application of the laws and subordinate statutes of the age limit trademark register and the IDS Trademark Register;

1. Article 93 of the former Trademark Act (amended by Act No. 14033, Feb. 29, 2016; hereinafter “former Trademark Act”) on criminal facts and Article 93 of the same Act on the selection of punishment for imprisonment

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

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (it shall take into account the favorable circumstances as seen below):

1. Reasons for sentencing under Article 97-2(1) of the former Trademark Act unfavorable to the defendant: The circumstances that the defendant again committed the crime of this case despite the fact that the defendant had been punished for the same kind of crime several times, reflects the defendant's mistake in depth, seems to be necessary for his livelihood without any significant amount of infringement, and the decision of sentence that there is no penalty imposed by imprisonment without prison labor or heavier for the same crime: the above circumstances and the defendant's age, character and behavior, career, and experience.