logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2018.12.06 2018고단5948
상표법위반
Text

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is a person who operates a store in Jung-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government B market No. 100, 101, 126, 127.

No person shall use a trademark identical or similar to another person's registered trademark on goods identical or similar to the designated goods, or possess for the purpose of transferring or delivering goods identical or similar to the designated goods bearing another person's registered trademark or any other trademark similar thereto.

그럼에도 피고인은 2018. 4. 19. 00:20 경 위 매장에서, 대한민국 특허청에 등록한 상표권자 가 부시 끼가 이샤 고모 데 갸 루 쏭의 꼼 데 가 르 송 상표( 등록번호 제 0597551호) 와 동일한 상표가 부착된 꼼 데 가 르 송 의류 318개를 비롯하여 별지 범죄 일람표 기재와 같이 총 2 종, 394개의 위조 상품을 불특정 다수인에게 판매할 목적으로 전시, 소 지하였다.

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

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Police seizure records;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes of the Control Site photograph, written appraisal opinion, photograph, and original register of trademark rights;

1. Selection of each of the provisions of Article 230 of the Trademark Act (limited to each registered trademark) and imprisonment with prison labor as to facts constituting an offense;

1. The former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the same Act, which aggravated concurrent crimes;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the suspended execution;

1. The community service order under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act;

1. The sentencing of Article 236(1) of the Trademark Act provides that the defendant has seven criminal records of the same kind of fine, the amount of counterfeit goods is not significant, while the defendant cannot be seen as belonging to and selling counterfeit goods as authentic goods, taking into account all other factors of sentencing.

arrow