Defendants shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

Defendant

A is a person who operates a garment manufacturing plant in the name of “D” on the 2nd floor of Seoul Jung-gu C building, and Defendant B is a person who operates an Internet clothing shopping mall in the name of “F” on the 3rd floor of Bupyeong-gu, Seoul.

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 October 2017, Defendant A received a request from Defendant B to create fake G sports from Defendant B, and Defendant G manufactured and stored 138 points by attaching a trademark identical or similar to “I” registered as trademark number H to the Korean Intellectual Property Office.

As a result, the Defendants conspired to forge and possess ‘I' goods for the purpose of sale, thereby infringing on the trademark rights of the victim.

Defendant

B denies the facts charged to the effect that the Defendant did not request the attachment of a trademark identical or similar to “I” with the trademark, but this court may reasonably adopt and investigate the following circumstances, namely, ① the witness of “D” operated by Defendant A, who is an employee in charge of the Defendant A, shall consistently from the investigation agency to the court, to this court, and consistently put the Defendant B’s test labels attached to the 60 pages of the investigation record on the factory “D,” and deliver them to J, and direct the work on the 60 pages of the investigation record, and they go against his memory, different from the ordinary design of Belgium.” Thus, it is difficult to view that there is any special circumstance that the above witness’s statement might be falsified, unlike the above witness’s statement, and in light of the witness’s attitude of statement, the credibility of the above witness’s statement on criminal facts is recognized. ②