상표법위반
The defendant shall be innocent.
Around 14:50 on April 24, 201, the Defendant, in collusion with C on the street of the D Cosmetics on April 24, 201, in order to sell a fake trademark attached by Titts 7, Eitts 63 Lits 63, Eits 7, Eitts 7, Eits 300, 300, 300, 370, 400, 370, 40, 370, 40, 300, 40, 300, 40, 30, 40, 30, 30, 40, 30, 30, 37, 40, 30, 40, 30, 30, 40, 30, 30, 37, 40, 36, 40, 30, 36, 46, 30, 36, 4.
Judgment
1. The defendant asserts, upon C's request, that the police only made a false statement, and that there is no way to sell forged goods bearing a trademark as stated in the facts charged.
2. According to the witness A and E’s legal statement, and the inquiry reply letter of the E Telecom: around March 16, 1995, the Defendant: (a) was a person with a somewhat falling intellectual ability, such as being treated as a mental hospital because of a traffic accident; (b) on July 16, 201, it is almost impossible to communicate with a mental hospital again; (c) upon E’s sale of goods bearing a sign of a fine, the Defendant introduced the Defendant to C by introducing a person who could make a statement on behalf of the police; (d) on April 26, 2011, the Defendant introduced the Defendant to C; and (e) on the same day: 12:16; 12:34; 12:58:34; 14:31:13, the same day; from April 16, 2011 to October 10, 2011; and (e) from March 14:13, 2011 to March 14.