1. Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 10,000,000;

2. If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 50.1 day.

Punishment of the crime

Defendant

A is an operator who manufactures counterfeit trademark products while operating a warehouse B, 1st floor factory, and 1st underground in Seoul Special Metropolitan City, and sells them, C is an intermediary who introduces intermediate sales and retail stores in the form of friendship A, and D is a person who is in charge of manufacturing counterfeit trademark products using phishing in the above factory as the wife of A.

An act of using a trademark similar to the registered trademark of another person on goods identical with or similar to the designated goods, and an act of manufacturing, delivering, selling or possessing tools for the purpose of forging or forging the registered trademark of another person or making a person forge or imitate the registered trademark, and an act of possessing, for the purpose of transferring or delivering goods identical with or similar to the designated goods on which the registered trademark of another

Nevertheless, from February 18, 2013 to April 5, 2013, the Defendant, in collusion with C and D, made Handbags and bags in collusion with the Defendant and D, using the cropsy, MCM, and Rambags trademark marked in the Korean Intellectual Property Office’s registered trademark as shown in the attached Form at the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Gwangjin-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City Gwangjin-gu Factory, and made Handbags and bags through the string process. D stored in the storage warehouse located in the first floor in Gwangjin-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Seoul Special Metropolitan City B, and C imported and sold intermediate bags and retail boxes whose name is unknown to the Defendant and D, and sold them for the purpose of sale of 230 billion won, b.1.6 billion won, 21.6 billion won, 8 billion won, 3.6 billion won, 8 billion won, 200 billion won, and 3.

Accordingly, the defendant, in collusion with C or D, infringed the trademark right of the trademark owner.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Police suspect interrogation protocol of D or C;

1. Reports on internal investigation, investigation reports, on-site photographs;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on police seizure records;

1. Article 93 of the Trademark Act, Article 93 of the Criminal Act concerning criminal facts.