Defendant

Delay Kim

Attorney Park Jong-soo (Korean National Assembly)

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of one million won.

When the defendant fails to pay the above fine, the defendant shall be confined in the workhouse for a period calculated by converting 50,000 won into one day.

On August 20, 2009, New Zealand's trademark registration of Scafro clim cream is a trademark registered in the trademark registration ledger by New Zealand on August 20, 2009, and the Nonindicted Party registered as an exclusive license establishment with the Korean Intellectual Property Office under the Trademark Act (0798450) on January 18, 2010, and was granted the exclusive license from August 20, 2009 to August 20, 201.

Nevertheless, from January 21, 2010 to the Internet homepage (Internet address omitted), the Defendant attached and sold the trademark of the cream crypt for children to the children's crypt.

Accordingly, the defendant infringed on the trademark right of the Paart Plaz.

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of the Nonindicted Witness

1. The police statement of the Nonindicted Party

1. Complaint;

1. Copy of the original trademark register;

1. Article relevant to the facts constituting an offense and the selection of punishment;

Article 93 (Selection of Fine)

1. Detention in a workhouse;

Articles 70 and 69(2) of the Criminal Act

The Defendant asserts that New Zealand, a trademark right holder, imported and sold the instant water reduction from Australia’s MOERN TAEAPPPE LTD that is being supplied with and sold by Schlage's FINE ACR SUPPE LTS (hereinafter “instant water reduction”), and that it is an act permitted by parallel import of so-called authentic goods, and thus, it does not infringe the trademark right of FINE ATRT SUPPPED.

In this case, the following circumstances are acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court of this case. In other words, around November 20, 2009, the defendant's import of "FAS SUPPPPPT PAS SES 8 x 2LT 8 x 2 x 8 x 2 x the defendant's import of the water of this case from Australia company in addition to the import declaration certificate stating the import of the water of this case from Australia company as well as the import of the water of this case after its transfer or after its import, it is naturally allowed by concurrent importer (see Supreme Court Decision 9Da42322, Sept. 24, 2002, etc.). However, in this case, the defendant's assertion that the defendant arbitrarily manufactured the goods of this case with small quantity of goods manufactured by him and attached the trademark of this case cannot be accepted in light of the following circumstances:

Judges Man-Man-Un