Where the defendant fails to pay the above fine, one million won shall be the one day.

The defendant is a person who sells clothes, strings attached to the c and strings, maliciouss, etc. used for the operation of Otoba in the name of Seongdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government and the first floor with "D".

On September 30, 2013, the Defendant sold “Saman’s 110 weeks Mayman’s Mayman’s Mayman’s Mayman’s 110th century” with the trademark forged at the above store (No. 0198983 and No. 0204237). The Defendant carried five Mayman’s Mayman’s five Mayman’s trademark attached with the trademark and four Mayman’s Mayman’s Mayman’s Mayman’s Mayman’s trademark

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of witness E and F;

1. A seizure record and a list;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to goods appraisal certificates, fake bamboo photographs, trademark register pictures, and trademark register of 110 weeks;

1. Relevant provisions of facts constituting an offense and each provision of Article 93 of the Trademark Act regarding the choice of punishment.

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

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

1. Article 97-2 (1) of the Trademark Act that is confiscated;

1. Judgment on the assertion by the Defendant and the defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The alleged defendant and the defense counsel asserts to the effect that, since the Heari bank is not kept for sale purposes, the trademark attached to the semi-presidential clothes is clearly distinguishable from the truth, there was no intention of trademark infringement in relation to the trademark attached to the anti-presidential clothes.

2. Determination

A. According to the statements of E and F in this Court, it is recognized that the defendant displayed the above Doluri bank at a place where customers can see it.

B. “Conduct of possessing, for the purpose of transfer or delivery, goods identical with or similar to the designated goods on which another person’s registered trademark or similar trademark is indicated” constitutes an act infringing on the trademark right or exclusive license (Article 66(1)4 of the Trademark Act), and the registered trademark of this case.