When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

The defendant is a person who operates clothes with D's trade name located in Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government 3-C, 29.

No person shall possess goods identical with or similar to designated goods on which another person's registered trademark or any other trademark similar thereto is marked for the purpose of transfer or delivery.

Nevertheless, the Defendant, at around January 10, 2015, sold 1,890 won a monetet to F with the same trademark as the monet trademark registered with the Korean Intellectual Property Office No. 037376 on August 28, 1997 and infringed upon the Defendant’s trademark right by selling 1,890,000 won a monet to F.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. A statement (including a copy of the protocol of examination of the suspect) prepared by the police against the accused in relation to the interrogation of the suspect, the protocol of examination of the suspect, the G, H, I, and the J, and each police record prepared by the police against F, I, H, and J;

1. Each investigation report (whether a work is authentic and appraised, a report on the calculation of the fixed price, a trademark registration ledger, a submission of the records of trademark transactions, a submission of the history of suspect transactions, a currency in charge of K), a copy of the official document requesting appraisal and a written appraisal, a copy of the specifications of sale of counterfeit goods, K site, a copy of receipt, a Stockholm (Stockholm, H dialogue), a record of seizure, a Kax dialogue (I and H);

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to inquiries, such as criminal history;

1. Article 93 of the relevant Act and Article 93 of the former Trademark Act (wholly amended by Act No. 14033, Feb. 29, 2016; hereinafter the same) regarding criminal facts and the selection of fines for negligence

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. Article 97-2 (1) of the former Trademark Act that has been confiscated;

1. The judgment and the defense counsel on the issue of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act regarding the issue of the provisional payment order is that the defendant misleads the defendant to believe that the instant monet was a monet mons and purchased it and sold it to F. Therefore, the defendant did not have any criminal intent in violation of the Trademark Act.

The argument is asserted.

The following circumstances, which are acknowledged as a whole by the evidence duly adopted and examined by this Court: