logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2015.12.10 2015노1137
상표법위반
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In so doing, the lower court’s collection of KRW 11,702,867, which is the full amount of the sales price of goods, is unlawful, since the proceeds earned by the Defendant by committing a crime in violation of the Trademark Act are KRW 3,882,199, which deducts product cost, selective distribution cost, personnel expenses, fees, and taxes from the sales

B. The sentence (two million won of fine) imposed by the lower court on the grounds of unreasonable sentencing is excessively unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of misapprehension of legal principles, the property generated by the infringement of trademark rights under Article 93 of the Trademark Act is criminal proceeds under Article 2 of the Act on Regulation and Punishment of Criminal Proceeds Concealment, which are subject to confiscation or collection under Articles 8 through 10 of the same Act. In addition, in order to obtain criminal proceeds, the expenses paid by the offender in order to obtain criminal proceeds, even if they are paid from criminal proceeds, shall not be deducted from criminal proceeds unless they are used to consume criminal proceeds (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Do7146, Jun. 29, 2006). Article 97-2 of the Trademark Act provides the goods itself generated by the infringement of trademark rights as the subject of necessary confiscation, and it cannot be compensated for the expenses paid in the course of sale, considering that the property generated by the sale of goods infringing the trademark rights cannot be deemed to be limited to the net profit acquired by such sale. Therefore, it is reasonable to deem that the sales proceeds itself should be collected in full in addition to sales proceeds.

Therefore, it is legitimate for the court below to calculate the surcharge on the basis of the sales price of goods, so this part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

B. The Defendant appears to have made a confession and reflect on the instant crime in lieu of the instant crime, and there is no criminal record for the same kind of crime, and the health status is good.

arrow