Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,000,000.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 50,000 won.

Punishment of the crime

No act of using a trademark identical with the registered trademark of another person on goods similar to the designated goods, or using a trademark similar to the registered trademark on goods identical or similar to the designated goods.

Nevertheless, the Defendant left China on June 2, 2012 and left Korea for the same purpose as domestic sales.

9. The same year after purchasing directly counterfeit goods equivalent to 112,00,000,000 won at a store located in the local market located in Gwangju Metropolitan City, on which a trademark "A" is marked, such as the details of the import of forged trademark goods (violation of Trademark Act) in attached Form 1, on the basis of the following:

9. 18. The goods were imported for the purpose of domestic sales through the Incheon Port (Secheon-gu Incheon Customs Office 1-22, Incheon Customs Office 1).

As a result, the Defendant infringed on the trademark right of the BURBERY, which was registered (registration number: 0419946) as a congested product with “BURD” in the U.K. as a congested product with shits, etc. to the Korean Intellectual Property Office.

Summary of Evidence

1. A protocol concerning the police interrogation of the accused;

1. Results of the verification of the services seized by this Court; and

1. Lives on the butane literature;

1. A written appraisal;

1. A copy of the original trademark register;

1. Coloring objects;

1. Application of the existing Acts and subordinate statutes of subparagraph 1 (Erts 280) seized;

1. Article 93 of the relevant Act concerning criminal facts and Article 93 of the Trademark Act regarding the selection of fines;

1. Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the provisional payment order;

1. Article 457-2 of the Criminal Procedure Act prohibiting disadvantageous changes [No confiscation under subparagraph 1 of the evidence seized by a summary order has been omitted (the prosecutor's office failed to punish the forfeiture since the time of filing a public prosecution);

) In accordance with the principle of prohibition of disadvantageous changes, the defendant shall not be sentenced to confiscation under Article 97-2(1) of the Trademark Act.