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

From around 2011, the Defendant had been living in the People's Republic of China of luminous lux, and had been selling home bags, clothing, shoes, etc. with a trademark from abroad.

No person shall sell goods identical with or similar to the designated goods on which another person’s registered trademark or a trademark similar thereto is marked.

피고인은 2012. 1.경부터 2012. 11.경까지 광저우시에 있는 사무실에서 인터넷 싸이트 ‘C’ 등 피고인이 관리하는 인터넷 싸이트와 070 인터넷 전화를 이용하여 국내에 있는 D 등으로부터 주문을 받은 다음, 별지 범죄일람표에 기재된 것과 같이 등록상표인 루이뷔통, 구찌, 프라다, 버버리, 샤넬, 나이키 등 해외유명 상표를 위조한 상표가 부착된 가품 판매금액 합계 92,775,730원 상당의 지갑, 가방, 의류, 신발 등을 국제특송 등을 통하여 판매하여 위 상표권자들의 상표권을 각 침해하였다.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Legal statement of witness E;

1. Each police suspect interrogation protocol of D, F, G, and H;

1. Each police statement to I, J, and K;

1. Seizure records and each photograph;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on investigation reports (specific amount of crime and trading volume);

1. Relevant Article 93 of the Trademark Act and the Selection of Imprisonment with prison labor for criminal facts;

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

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the stay of execution (i.e., the recognition of an error and reflects the depth of detention for about 70 days, and the fact that there is no past record of punishment for the same kind of crime);

1. Article 97-2 (1) of the Trademark Act that is confiscated;