Defendants shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,000,000.

Defendant

If A does not pay the above fine, it shall be 100.

Punishment of the crime

1. Defendant A is a person who operates “stock company B” established for the purpose of tourist business, leisure business, etc.

On August 19, 2014, the Defendant kept the registered trademark “LOIS VUITON” (Trademark No. 0123388) of the trademark right holder at the “D” store, a place of business of “B,” a corporation located in Seopopo City, Seopo City, Seopopo City, in order to sell, and infringed the trademark right by displaying the goods (6,200,000,000 won per unit of the sale price of fixed goods) of the non-fluored red-fluored one (50,000,000 won per unit of the sale price of fixed goods), of the non-fluored red cell 6 points (6,00,000 won per unit of the sale price of fixed goods), which is the registered trademark “LOIS VUITONN” (No. 0123388), which is a trademark right holder.

2. Defendant B, a representative of the Defendant’s business, committed an infringement of trademark rights, such as that described in paragraph (1).

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Each statement of E and F;

1. Application of each trademark register, records of seizure, records of appraisal of seized articles, photographs, certified transcript of corporate register, and Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Article relevant to the facts constituting an offense and the selection of punishment;

A. Defendant A: Each trademark covered by each product Article 93 of the Trademark Act

B. Defendant B: Articles 97 subparag. 1 and 93 of the Trademark Act comprehensively cover each product.

1. Aggravation of concurrent crimes: former part of Article 37, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act;

1. Attraction of a workhouse (Defendant A): Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act;

1. Confiscation (Defendants): Article 97-2 (1) of the Trademark Act;

1. The provisional payment order (defendants): The sentencing of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act is against the defendants' recognition of the crime, and the infringing goods were merely 13 points and were sold relatively relatively low on the premise that they were forged goods. Defendant A has no record of criminal punishment in addition to the punishment imposed by a fine exceeding 200,000 won due to the violation of the Punishment of Violence, etc. Act in 200.