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

The Defendant is a person who operates the “D” in the 1108 Dong-dong, Seocheon-si, Nowon-gu, Seoul.

From July 2008 to November 24, 201, the Defendant: (a) attached the aforementioned trademark “H, I, and J” to the cosmetic operated by the trademark right holder E on the Internet website (K) operated by the Defendant, by attaching the signs similar to the above trademark “G” in the same manner as the trademark registered with the Korean Intellectual Property Office (trademark number F); (b) sold number of cosmetics that are not known through the Defendant’s Internet website (K), etc.; and (c) kept the foregoing similar signs for sales purposes. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 20120, Jul. 23, 2008; Presidential Decree No. 20135, Nov. 24, 2011; Presidential Decree No. 20120, Jul. 1, 2008; Presidential Decree No. 20220, Jul. 7, 2007;

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Some of the interrogation records of the accused by the prosecution;

1. Statement of the police concerning L;

1. Seizure records;

1. A complaint;

1. The original trademark register, a warning letter, a public notice of the trademark of the Korean Intellectual Property Office, a closure of the website, a list of transactions, a list of screen pictures to be cut, the current status of Internet sales, and a written judgment of 201Heo6963;

1. Each photograph;

1. Application of investigation reports (including submission of evidentiary materials for sale of cosmetics with a trademark, such as "M" around November 24, 201) (including submission of evidentiary materials for sale of cosmetics on which a trademark is attached).

1. Article 93 of the relevant Article of the Trademark Act concerning facts constituting an offense;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. The Defendant and the defense counsel in the grounds for determining and sentencing the Defendant and the defense counsel’s assertion pursuant to Article 97-2 of the Trademark Act, alleged that the Defendant had the right to use the trademark of this case as a prior user under Article 57-3 of the Trademark Act, and that the Defendant did not constitute a crime of mistake in law.

According to the above evidence, the defendant could be found to have manufactured and sold cosmetics using the trade name or trademark "N" from around 2002 at least before 202, but the trademark of this case on March 2006.