The sentence of each sentence against the Defendants shall be suspended.

Punishment of the crime

Defendant

A is the representative director of the defendant B, and the defendant B is a corporation established for the purpose of manufacturing and selling luice.

1. From June 30, 2017 to August 30, 2017, Defendant A sold I, J, and other assembly parts bearing a trademark identical or similar to the “H” trademark registered with the Korean Intellectual Property Office by the victim D Co., Ltd. as F and G to the Korean Intellectual Property Office on the E-Date, and infringed the victim’s trademark right.

2. Defendant B Co., Ltd. committed the same offense as described in paragraph (1) in relation to the Defendant’s business at the time and place mentioned in paragraph (1).

Summary of Evidence

1. Each legal statement of the Defendants (as of the seventh trial date);

1. Statement of the police concerning L;

1. A criminal investigation report (Attachment of relevant written rulings) and a criminal investigation report (Attachment to materials submitted by a suspect's counsel);

1. Application of each trademark registration certificate, reference documents submitted by the complainants of each product drawing, photographs of the B website of each trial decision, and copies of D Kabro Act and subordinate statutes;

1. Article relevant to the facts constituting an offense and the selection of punishment;

A. Defendant A: Article 93 of the former Trademark Act (wholly amended by Act No. 14033, Feb. 29, 2016; hereinafter the same) provides that “this Act shall apply from the date of application for trademark registration filed after the enforcement of this Act,” and each of the instant registered trademarks of the victim company is Oct. 8, 2014 prior to the date of enforcement of the wholly amended Trademark Act (wholly amended by Act No. 14033, Feb. 29, 2016); Article 93 of the former Trademark Act (wholly amended by Act No. 1403, Feb. 29, 2016); Article 93 of the former Trademark Act (wholly amended by Act No. 14033, Feb. 29, 2016) applies to the instant case; and Article 93 of the former Trademark Act does not affect the interpretation of the right to defense or interpretation of the Defendants by identical with Article 230 of the Trademark Act stated in the indictment by the prosecutor.

each.