Defendant

If A does not pay the above fine, it shall be 100.

Defendant

A is the representative director of Defendant B who is engaged in the electronic commerce business on the five floors of Songpa-gu Seoul building.

No trader or distributor of goods, etc. shall impair or modify the indication of origin.

1. On March 6, 2019, Defendant A, on the ground that the labelling condition in which “made in china” was written with respect to the Chinese clothing products purchased at D stores at the above office was not advanced, Defendant A, as well as the removal of the labelling mark on the website (E) operated by the Defendant, damaged the labelling mark on the total of KRW 572,470,00 of the wholesale price of KRW 37,192 of the domestic clothing of Korea by September 2, 2019, including the sale on the Internet homepage (E) operated by the Defendant, from September 2, 2019.

2. The Defendant B, a representative director of the Defendant, committed the same offense as that of paragraph (1) at the time and place specified in paragraph (1).

Summary of Evidence

1. The Defendants’ written confirmation of the representative B, the photo of the Belgium removal, the investigation report of the inventory status of the goods inspected for the indication of origin (data acquisition), the copy of the B sales registration certificate, the copy of the certified copy of the corporate registry, and the application of the A Criminal List Act and subordinate statutes;

1. Article 53-2 subparagraph 1-2 of Article 53-2 and Article 33 (4) 2 of the Foreign Trade Act; Defendant B who choose a fine: Articles 57, 53-2 subparagraph 1-2 and 33 (4) 2 of the Foreign Trade Act;

1. Defendant A to be detained in a workhouse: Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act;

1. A normal condition favorable to the reasons for sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of each of the provisional payment orders: The fact that Defendant A recognized wrong and reflects the fact that the labels of clothes kept at the time of detection are again attached to China in accordance with the corrective order, and Defendant A suspended indictment once due to the violation of the Trademark Act.