However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for three years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

On May 8, 2015, the Defendant: (a) around the first floor of Gwangjin-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City, a trademark right holder’s trademark “TRY BURCH; (b) 1 new launch with a trademark in the same shape as “TUIS VUITN” attached on the horse belt; (c) 1 new launch with a trademark in the same shape as “LAVIS VUITN” attached on the trademark right holder’s trademark “SIIS E.P. E.A.”); and (d) 1 new launch with a trademark in the same shape as “SIIS E.A.O.”, a trademark right holder’s trademark “SAVIE E. E.P.”); and (c) carried it in order to sell the new launch with a trademark attached thereto.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Police seizure records;

1. Control note and photograph of seized articles;

1. Report of investigation (report attached to the trademark register) and application of Acts and subordinate statutes of each trademark register;

1. Article 93 of the Trademark Act governing the facts constituting an offense and Article 93 of the Election of Imprisonment;

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

1. Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act on the stay of execution (hereinafter “the grounds for a suspended sentence”)

1. Probation, community service order, the proviso to Article 62-2 (1) and (2) of the Criminal Act, Article 59 of the Act on Probation, etc.;

1. Reasons for sentencing under Article 97-2 (1) of the Trademark Act [Scope of Sentencing Recommendation] Registration Infringement Act: No person who has basic area (10 months to 2 years) of category 1 of the Trademark Act (no person: hereinafter referred to as "decision of sentence"): There is a criminal record of probation for the same crime even before the unfavorable circumstances; however, there is a criminal record of probation for the same crime; again, the criminal defendant committed each of the crimes of this case; the defendant manufactured a new trademark directly forged at the factory operated by him/her and made a new trademark with heavy appearance; the defendant seems to be wrong and repent; the degree of infringement of trademark rights due to each of the crimes of this case is difficult to be considered to be significant in light of the number of new events held by him/her and the size of the factory operated by him/her; and other various arguments and records of this case are presented.