Defendant shall be punished by a fine of 1.5 million won.

If the defendant fails to pay the above fine, 50,000 won shall be one day.

Punishment of the crime

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

Nevertheless, from August 201 to June 7, 2013, the Defendant posted the “F” trademark, which is similar to the “F” (the registered trademark, No. 20, G), the trademark holder E, the trademark right holder of the trademark, on the Internet, and infringed the trademark right of the trademark right holder by using the signboard, etc.

Summary of Evidence

1. A witness I and each legal statement of the J;

1. Partial statement of the witness K in the court;

1. Statement of the police officer to I;

1. Three photographs of the H signboard;

1. Application of the statutes of the original trademark register;

1. Relevant Articles of the Act and Article 93 of the Trademark Act concerning facts constituting an offense;

1. Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. The portion not guilty under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the provisional payment order

1. The summary of the facts charged shall not use a trademark identical with the registered trademark of another person for goods similar to the designated goods, or use a trademark similar to the registered trademark of another person for goods identical with or similar

Nevertheless, from June 1, 201 to July 31, 2011, the Defendant posted the “H” trademark similar to the “F” (registered, No. 20, G), a trademark holder E, a trademark right holder, on the Internet for the purpose of sale promotion, and infringed the trademark right of the trademark right holder, such as the use of signboards.

2. The police interrogation protocol of the defendant, which seems to correspond to the facts charged in this part of the judgment, denies its content in this court, so it is not admissible, and the remaining evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to recognize this part of the facts charged.