The defendant shall be innocent.

1. Around November 2011, the Defendant produced 146,880 ($79,386 in total market price) as the end of each day on which D had a trademark identical or similar to the trademark “E” (F) registered with the Korean Intellectual Property Office by the owner of the trademark right at a factory of a limited liability company operated by the Defendant in the People’s Republic of China, which is in the Chinese Republic of China, and sold it to G.

Accordingly, the defendant infringed the trademark rights of the trademark right holder.

2. The gist of the Defendant and his defense counsel’s assertion is that the Defendant is the manufacturer of both horses, and there is the volume of the trademark attached to the instant trademark (E, registration number: F; hereinafter “instant trademark”) through the I president of H Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “H”), who is entitled to use the instant trademark (hereinafter “H”). The Defendant and his defense counsel’s assertion that the two parts of the instant facts charged were produced and supplied to G (hereinafter “G”) through the I president of H, and that the two parts of the instant trademark as indicated in the instant facts charged were supplied to G directly from the above I, and that the two parts of the instant facts charged were supplied to the same goods, and that the Defendant ordered direct supply, and accordingly, the use of the instant trademark was ordered, so there was no intention of infringement of trademark rights.

3. However, there was a witness I’s statement that corresponds to the facts charged in the instant case that the Defendant, without permission, manufactured and sold the two horses on which the trademark of this case was attached, thereby infringing on the trademark of this case (the witness J stated at the police that the Defendant agreed that the Defendant would pay 2% of the royalty to H, but the telephone investigation report containing the content was not adopted as hearsay evidence again, and the Defendant did not have agreed to do so, and the J reversed that the Defendant made a false statement even though there was no such agreement from the time of the above statement to the time of the investigation, to this court). The main contents of the report have the authority to use the trademark of this case.