Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 2,000,000.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Punishment of the crime

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

Nevertheless, on March 4, 2016, the Defendant sold four wheel chairs arbitrarily marked “BMW trademark” to the Defendant, who had the trademark right registered with the Korean Intellectual Property Office in the Korean Intellectual Property Office (hereinafter “Korea Intellectual Property Office”) on March 4, 2016.

Accordingly, the defendant infringed the trademark rights of the trademark right holder.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement of the police suspect against the defendant;

1. Statement made by the police against D;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on entry and departure transactions;

1. Article 93 of the relevant Act and Article 93 of the former Trademark Act (wholly amended by Act No. 14033, Feb. 29, 2016) regarding criminal facts and the selection of fines for negligence

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. The defendant guilty of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the Provisional Payment Order asserts to the effect that the sale was made only by way of the coloring, not the sale of goods (wheel chairs).

However, according to the records of this case, the complainant requested the defendant to replace the wheelchairs and the defendant replaced the wheelchairs, and the defendant transferred the sum of 600,000,000 won for the wheelchairs, 200,000 won for the installation, and 200,000 won for the installation, to the defendant's wife's account in the name of the defendant, and the defendant sells BM wheels 20,000,000 won from E in the investigative agency knowing that the complainant wants to purchase BM qui 20,00 wheelchairs from E.

In full view of the facts stated as "(24 pages of the investigation records)", etc., the defendant can sufficiently recognize that the defendant has sold wheelchairs again from the wheelchairs seller, so the defendant's assertion is without merit.