logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2013.09.26 2013고정348
상표법위반
Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,000,000.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 50,000 won.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

From November 17, 2011 to February 27, 2012, the Defendant: (a) at the office of “D”; (b) the trademark right holder supplied from “BEATS BYDDDDDDDDD (registration number No. 0035130) registered on May 17, 2011, the Defendant kept the hedging and the earphone with the same trademark as the trademark attached to “BEATS BYDDD” (www.co., Ltd.); and (c) Open Market (www.co., Ltd.); (d) the sales price of 19,312,740 won in total over 210 times, as indicated in the attached list of crimes, and (e) the trademark right holder’s sales of 370,740 won in total, and (e) sold 19,301,301,000 won in total, and (e) the trademark right holder’s sales of 201,3010.4

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of witness F;

1. Protocol concerning the interrogation of suspects by the prosecution concerning E;

1. Written appraisal and the original trademark register;

1. Application of the police seizure protocol (345 pages of investigation records) statute;

1. Relevant Articles of the Act and Article 93 of the Trademark Act concerning facts constituting an offense;

1. Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. Article 97-2 (1) of the Trademark Act that is confiscated;

1. Determination on the assertion by the defendant and his/her defense counsel under Articles 10(1) and 8(1) of the Act on the Regulation and Punishment of Criminal Proceeds Concealment

1. The Defendant, while operating a computer parts and peripheral devices, was introduced from F to sell the instant earphones, etc., which was known to him through the transaction, and the F believed that the earphones, etc. were concurrent imported, and confirmed and traded the import completion certificate for the earphones, etc.

Therefore, since the Defendant only sold the instant earphone, etc. with the awareness that the instant earphone, etc. sold the same, it did not know whether it infringed upon the trademark right holder’s right, the Defendant did not have any criminal intent to infringe on another person’

2. The judgment of this case.

arrow