logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2018.05.03 2017노1604
상표법위반
Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant is innocent. The summary of this judgment shall be notified publicly.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, the Defendant did not sell the similaritys of the designated cosmetics bearing a trademark similar to the registered trademark of Crereres Korea Co., Ltd., and did not know that the trademark attached to the cosmetics subject to the instant transaction was false.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (an amount of KRW 300,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. On March 18, 2016, the summary of the facts charged in the instant case, the Defendant sold at KRW 10,900 the cosmetics with a trademark similar to the trademark (e-mail) registered with the Korean Intellectual Property Office by Cuerisson 9comx registered with the Korean Intellectual Property Office (hereinafter “D”).

B. 1) In a criminal trial, the finding of guilt should be based on evidence with probative value sufficient to make a judge not to have any reasonable doubt that the facts charged are true, and if there is no such proof, even if there is no doubt of guilt against the defendant, the conviction cannot be judged in accordance with such legal principles (see Supreme Court Decisions 2001Do2823, Aug. 21, 2001; 2005Do8675, Mar. 9, 2006, etc.).

According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, the defendant's holding in order to transfer the similar goods of the designated cosmetics bearing a trademark similar to the "Gerisson 9comx" trademark registered with the Korean Intellectual Property Office (hereinafter "the similar goods of this case") in the Internet shopping mall as stated in the facts charged by the defendant, and it is recognized the fact that the defendant sold them to 10,90 won via the Internet electronic commerce platform of 11.

However, it is consistent that the Defendant had consistently different goods from the investigative agency to the court of the first instance from the designated goods, and the trademark affixed thereto was false.

(b)bed;

arrow