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

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant is a person who operates the Internet shopping mall under the trade name of “C” in Open Market B.

No one shall deliver, sell, forge, imitate or possess a trademark identical or similar to the registered trademark of another person for the purpose of using or making another person use it on goods identical or similar to the designated goods.

Nevertheless, around May 18, 2018, the Defendant sold any goods bearing a trademark identical or similar to the trademark registered with the Korean Intellectual Property Office (trademark registration number E) from that time to March 24, 2019, as indicated in the separate crime list, by selling any goods bearing a trademark identical or similar to the trademark registered with the Korean Intellectual Property Office (trademark registration number E), thereby infringing upon the trademark rights of each trademark holder.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Answer to a request for provision of investigative data on cases violating the Trademark Act;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to an investigation report (referring to the confirmation of the date of purchase of forged goods), investigation report (referring to the confirmation of the details of sale of forged goods), investigation report (referring to the confirmation of the details of sale of forged goods), and investigation report (referring

1. Article 2(1) of the Addenda to the Trademark Act (wholly amended by Act No. 14033, Feb. 29, 2016) provides that “this Act shall apply from the date of application for trademark registration filed after the enforcement of this Act,” and each of the instant registered trademarks is prior to the enforcement date of the amended Trademark Act (wholly amended by Act No. 1403, Sep. 1, 2016), Article 93 of the former Trademark Act (wholly amended by Act No. 1403, Feb. 29, 2016) shall apply to this case. Article 93 of the former Trademark Act (wholly amended by Act No. 1403, Feb. 29, 2016); Article 93 of the former Trademark Act is identical to Article 230 of the current Trademark Act as stated in the indictment by the public prosecutor and affects the interpretation of the defendant’s right of defense or right of defense.