Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 7,000,000.

Where the above fine is not paid, 100,000 won shall be one day.

Punishment of the crime

At around 16:50 on April 7, 2016, the Defendant, who operated the clothing sales store of “D” in Gangnam-gu Seoul, violated the trademark right of the owner of the trademark right concerned by keeping 182 points, such as clothes with a forged trademark (a total of 709,90,000 won at the fixed price of goods) as indicated in the attached list of crimes, including keeping 7 cot with a forged trademark (24,50,000 won at the fixed price of goods) for the purpose of selling them, as indicated in the attached list of crimes.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Seizure records;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes of each original trademark right register, such as appraisal opinion and unit price list;

1. Article 93 of the former Trademark Act (amended by Act No. 14033, Feb. 29, 2016; hereinafter the same shall apply) that applies to facts constituting an offense and Article 93 of the former Trademark Act (amended by Act No. 1403, Feb. 29

1. Of concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act;

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

1. It is not good that the crime is committed in light of the number of the registered trademark whose reason for sentencing under Article 97-2 (1) of the former Trademark Act is infringed, the size of the goods bearing the forged trademark handled, the fact that the defendant was discovered while keeping it for sale, etc. while operating the clothing store;

In particular, even though the defendant seems to have been well aware of the unique design and trademark right value as intellectual property as a worker of the clothing design industry, he committed such crime.

In light of these circumstances, the responsibility of the defendant is not somewhat weak.

However, such unfavorable circumstances are as follows: (a) the Defendant has no previous record other than having been sentenced to suspension of indictment for the same kind of crime in the past; (b) the confession of the fact of the crime; (c) the seizure of counterfeit goods in custody and did not reach the actual sales; (d) the social relationship is relatively obvious; and (e) the Defendant’s age, character and conduct.