A and B shall be punished by a fine of 8,000,000 won, and Defendant C shall be punished by a fine of 5,000,000 won.

Defendant

A. A.

Defendant

A is the representative director of Defendant C Co., Ltd. located in Osan City, and Defendant B is the internal director of the above C.

1. Defendant A and Defendants B sold 9,00,00 male mabs in the above C office around January 15, 201, to L, a male mabs, which are similar to the “J” where the victim H had a trademark registered (registration number I) as designated goods, and the victim H sold 9,00,000 male mabs in the case of a male mabs, which are similar to the “J” and the same year.

6. 8. Around August, 200, the trademark right of the above trademark right holder was infringed by selling a total of 20,000 copies, such as selling 11,00 copies of male mags, which is a trademark similar to the above J, to L.

2. The Defendant Co., Ltd. committed the same offense as that of the Defendant’s business in relation to the Defendant’s business at the time, place, and the representative A and B of the Defendant Company.

Summary of Evidence

1. Each legal statement of the defendant A and B

1. Examination protocol of the suspect of the defendant A and B (No. 34 No. 54);

1. Examination protocol of police suspect regarding L;

1. The police statement of H;

1. The president of the Korea Development Bank and the detailed statement of transactions (No. 43);

1. Trademark registration certificate, trademark Gazette;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes, such as product photographs (No. 12), product photographs (No. 17) affixed with a similar trademark, product photographs and price tables (No. 17);

1. Article relevant to the facts constituting an offense and the selection of punishment;

A. Defendant A and B: Article 93 of the Trademark Act, and Article 30 of the Criminal Act (Selection of Fine)

B. Defendant C: Articles 97 subparag. 1 and 93 of the Trademark Act

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

1. The defense counsel's assertion of the defense counsel under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act regarding the provisional payment order has not accepted the above products because the defendant did not pay to the defendants despite the victim's request for the production of the product of this case and the defendants did not necessarily engage in the same act as the facts constituting the crime in which the defendants had no choice but to do so, which does not violate social rules.