Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,500,000.

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

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is a person who is engaged in the business of selling clothes between Daejeon Central and Daejeon C in the name of ‘D' in 60.

No one shall deliver, sell, forge, forge, 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, at around 13:40 on March 5, 2013, the Defendant violated the above trademark right by finding any mother and child-child store attached with a trademark similar to the trademark "NEPA", which had been registered at the Korean Intellectual Property Office (registration No. 035624) on November 27, 1997, and any other trademark similar to the trademark "NEPA", which had been registered at the Korean Intellectual Property Office (registration No. 079050) at Pyeongtaekan L&C Co., Ltd. on April 15, 2008, by displaying it for sale or sale to unspecified customers.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. The original trademark register;

1. On-site photographs;

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

1. Relevant Article 93 of the Trademark Act concerning facts constituting an offense and the choice of punishment, respectively;

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

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

1. Article 97-2 (1) of the Trademark Act that is confiscated;

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

1. The defendant's assertion and judgment under Article 186 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, which bear the cost of lawsuit, the defendant asserts that the employee was mistaken for the sale of the defendant's her husband, even though her husband uses.

According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court including each of the above evidences, it can be recognized that the mother was displayed together with other women for sale, and that the above mother was attached to the price list. Accordingly, the defendant did not ask the selling price of the mother and child to the price list.