Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 2,000,000.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Punishment of the crime

No person shall conduct any unfair competitive act detrimental to the distinctiveness or reputation of another person's mark by using any name, trade name, trademark, container or package of goods, or other goods identical or similar to another person's mark widely known in the Republic of Korea, or by selling, distributing, importing, or exporting goods using such goods, without justifiable grounds.

Nevertheless, the Defendant, who is engaged in the secondhand trading business with the business mark “D” in Daejeon Peong-gu B, committed an act that damages the victim’s distinctiveness or reputation by using a mark similar to “G”, a well-known business mark, which is the victim F, without justifiable grounds, in setting up and operating a camera on the Internet from around 2014 to the present day by displaying it as “D” on the website.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on screen pictures by capturing photographs (D public relations), G members data, statistical office data, surveys, survey reports, results of recognition of users of G trademark, and capturings;

1. Relevant Article of the Act on the Prevention of Unfair Competition and Protection of Trade Secrets concerning facts constituting an offense, and Article 18 (3) 1 and subparagraph 1 (c) (excluding punishment) of Article 2 of the Act on the Protection of Trade Secrets and Protection of Trade Secrets;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the Provisional Payment Order refers to "damage to distinctiveness" under Article 2 subparagraph 1 (c) of the Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act (hereinafter "Unfair Competition Prevention Act") means "damage to the function of indicating the source as a product mark or a business mark" (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Da13782, May 14, 2004, etc.). The defendant uses "H", a business mark similar to "G", which is a business mark of the victim widely recognized in the Republic of Korea, as the mark of a franchise store, such as consumer goods and daily living congestion, and is similar to the victim's business mark.