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

The defendant is a person who operates C or D located in the Republic of Korea.

1. On April 2016, the Defendant sold 168 "J" (3,326,400 won at the market price of fixed goods presumption) and 148 "K" (1,465,200 won at the market price of fixed goods presumption) to consumers, respectively, without legitimate authority, of "G's trademark (registration number H) identical or similar to or similar to the G's trademark registered with the Korean Intellectual Property Office (registration number H) registered with the Korean Intellectual Property Office by the F corporation without legitimate authority.

As a result, the Defendant infringed the trademark rights of the said FF FF FF corporation and, at the same time, caused consumers to confuse the said laundry tax as if it were a laundry tax produced by FF corporation.

2. On May 13, 2016, the Defendant: (a) stored 48 J of “laund Tax,” a trademark identical with or similar to the said G,” and 28 “K” (27,200 won at the market price of fixed goods presumption) in each of the aforementioned D distribution warehouses; and (b) infringed the trademark rights of the said FF corporation.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Copy of the police interrogation protocol regarding E;

1. Statement by the police concerning L;

1. A written petition;

1. Each report on investigation;

1. A protocol of seizure and a list of seizure;

1. Three copies of the original register of trademark registration, appraisal, provision of information on normal values, and copy of the settlement statement, and 18 copies of the transaction statement;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes on search and seizure of DNA on May 13, 2016, to the illegal photograph of the I trademark sold in D, stuff photographs containing the tax system of the I trademark stored in a logistics warehouse used in D, stuff photographs of the I trademark, boom photographs of the warehouse, and DNA search and seizure photographs of the D.

1. A correction shall be made ex officio, on the grounds that even if the correction was made without amendment to the pertinent Article of the Act on Criminal Facts, it does not seem that the correction would bring a substantial disadvantage to the defendant

Each of the former Trademark Act (amended by Act No. 1403, Feb. 29, 2016) Article 93 of the former Trademark Act (amended by Act No. 14033, Feb. 29, 201); Article 18 of the Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act.