beta
Text
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,000,000.
The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.
Reasons
1. The main point of the grounds for appeal is that the lower court’s punishment (a fine of KRW 10 million, confiscation) is too unreasonable.
2. As to the instant case, the crime of violation of the Trademark Act is not against the nature of the crime in that it infringes on the right of the trademark right holder and disturbs the market transaction order.
However, the defendant did not have the ability to be punished for the same crime and appeared in the trial, and the Chinese origin at issue in this case shows the attitude of recognizing and reflecting the crime in this case. Considering the fact that the Chinese origin at issue in this case is recognized as having contributed to the development of Busan regional economy while engaging in the long-term unification sales business for a certain period of time, the defendant's sentencing conditions in the records, such as the defendant's age, character, character, environment, etc., are not the same as the shape of the damaged company that is not identical with the trademark of the unique design registered by the victimized company without indicating a separate mark "D company, G, MMAININININA" but rather, using a pattern similar to the registered trademark of the damaged company.
3. In conclusion, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the defendant's appeal is with merit.
Criminal facts
The summary of facts and evidence recognized by the court is the same as the corresponding column of the judgment of the court below, and thus, they are quoted in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.
Application of Statutes
1. In full view of Article 93 of the pertinent Act as to facts constituting an offense and Article 93 of the Trademark Act, the lower court determined that “sale” and “storage for the purpose of sale” constitute concurrent crimes by viewing each separate criminal act.