1. Defendant shall be punished by a fine of 5,000,000 won;

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

Punishment of the crime

No trademark identical with another person's registered trademark shall be used for goods similar to the designated goods or used for goods identical with or similar to the registered trademark of another person.

The Defendant was the representative director of D Co., Ltd. from January 5, 2009 to December 31, 2014.

From November 19, 2013 to December 31, 2014, the Defendant, while operating a hotel in the building located in Busan metropolitan Daegu E, used the victim’s service list, which is the same service list as the service list (registered G) registered with the Korean Intellectual Property Office by the victim F Co., Ltd., to the Korean Intellectual Property Office, for the signboards, furnitures, etc. of the said hotel without the victim’s consent or consent.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. A protocol concerning the suspect examination of the accused by the prosecution;

1. Statement to I;

1. A copy of the service registration certificate and infringing photographic data (the defendant side has used the name " hotel H" as the name of "service registration certificate."

J Group’s three hotels, two of which were the telegraph of the complainant (FF Co., Ltd.; hereinafter “Co., Ltd.”) (the name of F Co., Ltd.; hereinafter “Co., Ltd.”).

K Company was operated by L Company, but due to the bankruptcy of J Group, D Company was awarded a bid for the building and site of one hotel operated by L Company, and the equipment was also taken over by the bankruptcy administrator, and naturally “ hotel H” continued to be used. Accordingly, in light of the developments leading up to the use of the name of the hotel, etc., the Defendant asserted that the Defendant cannot be recognized as committing a crime in violation of the Trademark Act, but the Defendant was aware at the prosecutor’s office that the name of the hotel was registered as the service list of the complainant on November 19, 2013.

The facts charged in this case are about the use of the above service list from November 19, 2013, which received the above proof from the defendant's side, and eventually, the defendant is the complainant with regard to the service list used by the defendant's side.