Defendant

A shall be punished by a fine of KRW 700,000,000,000,000,000.

Defendant

A above.

Punishment of the crime

1. Defendant A, who is a de facto operator of Defendant B Co., Ltd., a food-type company, continuously displayed and used the above trademark at the top-down signboard, window, and internal interior interior interior interior interior interior test, etc., from around that time to August 26, 2016, even though the above trademark use agreement entered into between Defendant C and the injured party, who is the trademark right holder, with respect to the trademark “E” registered as D, to the Korean Intellectual Property Office, was terminated and terminated on March 17, 2016.

Accordingly, the defendant infringed the trademark right of the victim.

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

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ legal statement

1. Statement of the police officer in G (list 11);

1. Each content certification (a list 2, 4, and 5), franchise agreement (a list 6), waste points confirmation certificate (a list 7), trademark registration certificate (a list 8), the certified copy of corporate register (a list 10), and specifications of transactions (a list 13);

1. Investigation report (List 14);

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to photographs (list 3);

1. The pertinent law and the Defendant A who selected a sentence on criminal facts: Article 93 of the former Trademark Act (wholly amended by Act No. 14033, Feb. 29, 2016; hereinafter the same shall apply); Articles 97 and 93 of the former Trademark Act

1. Defendant A to be detained in a workhouse: Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act;

1. The reason for sentencing of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act (Defendant A), confessions, reflects, and long time a fine has no power to impose criminal punishment except twice or more, and there are no circumstances to consider the circumstances leading to the crime. It is deemed that the above trademark infringement was committed on the Haman on August 2016.