Defendant

A Imprisonment for one year, and each of the defendants B shall be punished by imprisonment for ten months.

However, this judgment is delivered against Defendant B.

Punishment of the crime

Defendant

A is a person who operates a package gambling manufacturer in the trade name of “F” in the Kim Sea-si, and Defendant B is a person who works for a package gambling manufacturer in the trade name of “H” in the Kim Sea-si.

No one shall use a trademark identical with the registered trademark of another person on goods identical with or similar to the designated goods or use a trademark similar to the registered trademark of another person on the designated goods or similar goods.

Nevertheless, around September 2010, Defendant A produced and sold a fake “prolonged old day” page from I, a total book that manufactures and sells a fake “prolonged old day” page, at the request of Defendant A to manufacture and request the paper stuff of the “prolonged old day” page with a forged trademark of the shape, such as the registered trademark of the old day, which is to be used in the manufacture of the old side. At that time, Defendant B conspired to manufacture and sell it to I.

Defendant

A around October 2010, provided rubber plates necessary for the printing of paper stuffs on the face of the “Fash Old Day”, Defendant B produced 700 paper stuffs on October 30, 2010 to the “J”, which was sent to the “J” manufacturer specialized in packing boxes, and sold to I by means of delivering the fash to the fash, Daegu-gun, Daegu-gun, the fashion.

From October 30, 2010 to February 13, 2012, the Defendants: (a) manufactured and sold 34,950 string 22,360 amblings to I via 22 occasions; (b) from September 26, 2012 to April 30, 2013, the Defendants conspired to commit a crime of manufacturing and distributing the old scams with the above I and a foot to K, a co-offender who conspired to commit a crime of manufacturing and distributing the old scams, 14 times in total over 36 times, including 12,590 amblings.

Accordingly, the Defendants conspired with I and K used the trademark identical to the registered trademark of another person on goods identical with or similar to the designated goods.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ each.