logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 울산지방법원 2017.07.12 2017고단938
위증
Text

Defendants shall be punished by a fine of KRW 5,000,000.

In the event that the Defendants did not pay the above fine, 100.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

1. On June 27, 2016, Defendant A appeared as a witness of the Defendant’s case violating the Trademark Act against Ulsan District Court No. 306 of the Ulsan District Court No. 306 of the Ulsan District Court, which was located in 55, on June 27, 2016.

In the above court, the defendant had manufactured the same paint additives as the KS CK's products in the above court.

G. G. G. L. L. L. L. L.W. for the question.

The products of the company called foreign G were the products of the company, but the low competitive power is likely to decline.

“The witness,” of the prosecutor’s “the prosecutor, at the direction of Defendant F, started to develop a reproduction, and the fact of the development was hidden in the KS Kenya.

any statement is required to be made.

“I am the same as I make a statement on the question “I do so, and this fact does not have any fact.”

The answer is that “the witness made H’s reproduction at Defendant F’s order in light of the above purport of the witness’s statement, and thoroughly confidential, and (a) at the investigative agency, the employee of the KS CBK called “F’s visit to the factory, at the site of producing H reproduction” and “IBK’s development of H reproduction at the time of the sale, I would be able to know about the H’s reproduction at the time of the sale.”

He saw that he was flicking about the food.

“The statements were made”, and what needs to be made.

It is the same that “I did not make any statement in the investigative agency (at the investigative agency)” for the question “.”

“The answer was made.”

However, Defendant 1, at F’s instruction while working in the above KSN, developed an additives of the same paint as H, a product of the KS CK, and thus, Defendant 1, at the KSN CK, developed an additives of the same paint as the product of the KS CK. Therefore, Defendant 1’s additives are the same as the product of the KSKK.

arrow