상표법위반
The judgment of the first instance is reversed.
Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,000,000.
The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.
1. Article 23 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Ex officio Proceedings and Articles 18(2) and (3), and 19(1) of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act provide that service by public notice shall be made to the defendant if the whereabouts of the defendant is not confirmed even though necessary measures are taken to confirm the whereabouts of the defendant. According to Article 63(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, service by public notice to the defendant can be conducted only when the dwelling, office, or present address of the defendant is unknown in the criminal proceedings. In the event the defendant's office telephone number or portable phone number on the record shows the above telephone number and the place of service by public notice, and the defendant's decision without the defendant's statement is not permitted as it violates Article 63(1) and 365 of the Criminal Procedure Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2004Do7145, Feb. 25, 2005; 2006Do3616, Jul. 12, 2007).
Therefore, in this regard, the first instance judgment cannot escape from reversal.
2. In conclusion, the judgment of the court of first instance has the above reasons for ex officio reversal, so it is in accordance with Article 364(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act.