A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.

Seized evidence 4 ( Daejeon District Prosecutors' Office 2015. 913) shall be confiscated.

Punishment of the crime

No one shall use a trademark identical with the registered trademark of another person for goods similar to the designated goods, or use a trademark similar to the registered trademark on goods identical with or similar to the designated goods

From January 28, 2015 to May 2015, the Defendant sold to L 12,210 cosmetics equivalent to KRW 549,450,00 of the market price of the refined with the trademark on which the Defendant’s trademark “HEAION” was attached to the Korean Intellectual Property Office, which had been registered as the designated goods by means of cosmetics, etc. at the K office operated by the Defendant in Yongsan-gu, Yongsan-gu, Yongsan-gu, Seoul, Seoul, and from January 28, 2015 to May 2015, the Defendant sold 7,710 of the total market price of the refined goods for eight times in total, as shown in the attached list of crimes, from January 28, 2015 to May 2015.

Accordingly, the defendant violated the trademark right (registration number No. 0964355, 09640) of the Amototoma, and the right to a trademark dispute resolution).

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Two-time protocol concerning examination of suspects of L;

1. Statement of police statement of M, N, orO;

1. Each written appraisal;

1. The original trademark register;

1. Photographs of a scoody storage warehouse;

1. A report on investigation (with respect to the calculation of a penalty, matters to be verified regarding the verification of the place of residence of a suspect, as to the manufacture of counterfeit goods);

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on seizure records;

1. Article 93 of the relevant Article of the Trademark Act concerning facts constituting an offense;

1. The fact that the sentencing of Article 97(2)2(1) of the Trademark Act reflects the reason for sentencing, there is room for consideration of the motive for committing an offense or the degree of intent, the fact that there is no criminal history other than the one-time suspension of indictment (e.g., flexible circumstances), the fact that the infringing goods of a considerable scale are repeated and the crime of trademark infringement appears to have been distributed, the fact that the actual amount of infringing goods are deemed not to have been recovered, (e.g., the amount of profit actually acquired by the defendant, and the amount of recommended sentences