Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 4,000,000.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Punishment of the crime

For the purpose of sale, the Defendant purchased the visibility from each other, including each other, at an insular and irregular location, and sold a letter to the mobile phone pole to sell it at an insular prices.

On September 12, 2017, the Defendant was able to sell the visibility purchased as above to the reporter who reported and contacted the sales writing in front of the Agricultural Cooperative Federation, 217 in Seocheon-si, Seocheon-si, Docheon-si, and No. 317 in front of the Agricultural Cooperative Federation.

Accordingly, the defendant violated the Trademark Act.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police against B;

1. Investigative report (referring to witness B’s Kakao Stockholm course), investigation report (referring to witness C telephone conversations), and report on the occurrence of a crime (violation of the Trademark Act);

1. A control statement;

1. Details of the Kakao Stockholm conversation (including visual photographs of counterfeit items);

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes governing suspect photographs taken at the scene;

1. Article 230 of the relevant Act on criminal facts, Article 230 of the Trademark Act on the Selection of Punishment, and Selection of Fines;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. Circumstances unfavorable to the reasons for sentencing of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the Provisional Payment Order: The defendant concealed the visibility in question, and made a vindication that it is difficult to obtain it, such as the fact that the crime of this case is not good, and that the visibility of this case is unaware of whether it is a forged product (According to the contents of Kakao Stockholm dialogue and text on No. 20, 24 of the Evidence Record, the defendant was aware of the trade name of this case, the fact that the defendant attempted to sell the visibility at a price significantly lower than the actual sale price of the new product, and the fact that the visibility of this case was well aware of the fact that the visibility of this case is a forged product). The circumstances that the defendant concealed the visibility in question, that the defendant could be used for the same crime in the future: the fact that the defendant was guilty, that there was no record of punishment for the same kind of crime, and the motive and circumstances of the crime, and that there was no motive for the crime.