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

1. The Defendant, in occupational breach of trust, is a director of an industrial tape business division in the victim E Co., Ltd., Ltd. from August 29, 2013 to August 11, 2015, who was engaged in overall management of the production and supply of the tapes.

As such, the Defendant served in the above company, and thus, there was a duty to faithfully perform the company’s business.

Nevertheless, on May 2, 2014, the Defendant violated his duties and established an industrial tape manufacturing company in the name of “G” in the name of “G” in the name of the Defendant’s wife at Kimpo-si, Kimpo-si, and also from March 2, 2015 to August 2015, the Defendant sold to the victimized Company H the same industrial tape monopoly supply contract with the victimized Company during the period of service to August 2, 2015, and acquired an equivalent amount of proprietary benefits to the same amount, and caused damage to the victimized Company.

2. No person who violates the Trademark Act shall use a trademark identical with another person's registered trademark on any goods identical with the designated goods;

Nevertheless, from March 2015 to August 2015, the Defendant violated the trademark right of the victimized company by attaching a forged trademark of the trademark "I" or "J" to the same industrial tape as the goods of the victimized company, and selling it to H as described in paragraph 1.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made to K in the police statement;

1. A complaint filed by E;

1. Application of employment contracts, annual salary contracts, goods monopoly contracts, electronic tax invoices (list 9), trademark registration certificates, and statutes;

1. Relevant laws and Articles 356 and 355(2) of the Criminal Act concerning criminal facts, the choice of punishment, and the choice of imprisonment, respectively;

1. The former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Code, Article 38(1)2 of the Criminal Code, which increases concurrent crimes.