Where a defendant fails to pay a fine, 10,000 won shall be 10 days.

The Defendant is a person who operates a trade company under the trade name of “C” in Yangcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government.

No one shall use any trademark identical with or similar to another person's registered trademark on goods identical with or similar to the designated goods, and shall deliver, sell, gather, or possess such trademark for the purpose of using or making another person use it.

Nevertheless, on August 10, 2016, the Defendant infringed upon the trademark rights of each trademark holder by carrying at the above company a new 4th, 000 square meters on which a trademark identical to the trademark registered with the Korean Intellectual Property Office (No. 027977) is attached, and the new 4th,000 co-ray, a magneticist, registered with the Korean Intellectual Property Office (No. 0095203) is attached with the new 6th,00 square meters on which the new son registered with the Korean Intellectual Property Office (No. 0095203) is attached.

Summary of Evidence

1. Part of the protocol (1) concerning the interrogation of the suspect against the defendant;

1. Adidios appraiser;

1. Police seizure records;

1. An investigation report (on-site crackdown on the sales stores of counterfeit products), on-site photographs;

1. The investigation report (as to the value of authentic goods and the ledger of product registration), the ledger of product registration (as to the new order of new order of new order, the defendant asserts that there was no appraisal as to forgery or forgery.

However, according to the above evidence, the defendant under investigation and recognized the fact that the above new events are forged, and purchased counterfeit items with a lower price than the domestic market in China Internet D.

Among them, there was a statement, among them, it was appraised as a forged product.

In full view of these points, the defendant's above assertion to the effect of denying the new outbreak can be recognized as a forged product is rejected.

In addition, the defendant purchased the above signals for the purpose of using them by the defendant.

The argument is asserted.

However, according to the above evidence, the following circumstances, which can be recognized, are as follows.