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

The Defendant is a person who sets a street in the Jongno-gu Seoul Jongno-ro 58-ro 27, the Jongno-gu 27-ro.

No one shall deliver, sell, forge, imitate, or possess a trademark identical or similar to another person's registered trademark for the purpose of using or making another person use such trademark on goods identical or similar to the designated goods.

Nevertheless, around 13:30 on December 23, 2018, a trademark registered with the Korean Intellectual Property Office at the above location, infringed the trademark right of the manufacture by displaying and possessing for the purpose of sale parts such as Roex (RLX) 9, Mazzine (HUBOT), Mazzine (CARIER), Mazine (PNER AI) Gaz.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. A protocol concerning the examination of the police officers of the accused;

1. B written statements;

1. A protocol of seizure and a list of seizure;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to investigation reports (Attachment to the original register, etc. of trademark registration);

1. Article 230 of the Trademark Act concerning facts constituting an offense. Article 230 (Selection of Penalty)

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

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

1. Article 236(1) of the Trademark Act that is confiscated;

1. Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the Provisional Payment Order (which argues to the effect that part of the goods Defendant displayed are used for heavy goods, and in this case, the crime of violating the Trademark Act is not established. However, an act of possessing, to transfer or deliver goods identical with or similar to the designated goods bearing another person’s registered trademark or similar trademark is considered as a trademark infringement regardless of whether the same or similar goods he/she possessed are new goods (Article 108(1)4 of the Trademark Act), and the defendant’s above assertion is not accepted, but the grounds for sentencing are taken into consideration).