상표법위반
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
1. When considering the fact that the defendant was discovered while selling the same fake cosmetics in the past and that there was a power to receive a summary order, the defendant was sufficiently aware that he was a fake
I would like to say.
2. The lower court found the Defendant not guilty of the instant facts charged on the ground that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone was insufficient to recognize that the Defendant had sold fake cosmetics with the knowledge that the Defendant was in possession of them, and that there was no other evidence to acknowledge the Defendant’s intention.
In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the above evidence, the judgment of the court below is just and there is an error of law by misunderstanding the facts and misunderstanding the legal principles as alleged by the prosecutor.
shall not be deemed to exist.
A. The Defendant consistently asserted to the effect that the Defendant sold 3 stuffs 106 attached with the cosmetic 9comx trademark from the distributor of G, Inc., and submitted relevant materials.
B. However, the representative director G, which supplied the goods to the Defendant, stated that “I supplied 106 cosmetics around July 2016 to the Defendant, all of which are supplied from the company that is the ledu global,” and “the ledu global is the supplier that has a legitimate right from the victimized company (Evidence No. 115-118 pages).” In addition, the Defendant testified to the effect that “K of the victimized company is all supplying the ledu global to the ledu global as the customer of the victimized company,” at the court of original instance, “the supply of the ledu global to the ledu global as the customer of the victimized company.” Ultimately, the Defendant purchased cosmetics through a normal distribution channel. As seen, the Defendant purchased the cosmetics through the normal distribution channel.