logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산지방법원 2014.02.06 2013노3458
상표법위반
Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by a fine of 500,000 won.

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 one million won and confiscation) is too unreasonable.

2. As to the instant case, the crime of violating the Trademark Act is not easy in that it infringes on the right of the trademark right holder and disturbs the market transaction.

However, as long as the Defendant was engaged in the virtual sales business, he purchased the counterfeit goods of this case at D's recommendation as a virtual supplier, and even though the market price of the counterfeit goods handled by the Defendant was determined to have reached approximately KRW 2,1310,00,00,00 in total, the actual storage of the counterfeit goods in order to sell them at the price of approximately 1/80,000 of the market price of the goods in question, there is no substantial difference in quality and price, and there is no possibility for general public to purchase them by misunderstanding them as static goods. In addition, in light of the empirical rule and the general transaction concept, it is reasonable to deem that the lower court is somewhat heavy, in full view of the fact that there is no profit gained by the Defendant due to the detection of the forged goods to the customers prior to the sale of the goods in question, and that there is no particular influence on the demand of the goods sold by the trademark owner in light of the empirical rule and the general transaction concept.

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. Article 93 of the Trademark Act concerning facts constituting an offense;

1. Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act of the Commercial Concurrent Crimes;

1. Selection of an alternative fine for punishment;

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. The order of provisional payment;

arrow