A defendant shall be punished by a fine of 500,000 won.

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

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant is a person who operates the “D” in Jeju City.

On August 10, 2015, the Defendant infringed the trademark rights and exclusive use rights of the said trademark holders by selling to the unspecified number of people who find the store points in selling the products bearing similar marks 6 points, such as the name “J”, etc. attached to the trademark “G” (trademark registration number H), which was similar to the registered trademark “G” (trademark registration number H), which is a registered trademark entrusted by the Defendant to F, and delegated the said rights to F.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Statement made to K in the police statement;

1. Written opinion;

1. A trademark registration certificate, a power of attorney for trademark rights, and a receipt for purchasing products;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes to sales photographs, counterfeit trademark pictures;

1. Relevant legal provisions and Article 93 of the Trademark Act regarding criminal facts, the choice of fines, and the choice of fines;

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

1. Determination on the assertion by the defendant and his/her defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. Summary of the assertion

A. The trademark of “I” (hereinafter “the trademark of this case”) and “G” the trademark of “I” (hereinafter “the registered trademark of this case”) sold by the Defendant and “I” (hereinafter “the trademark of this case”) are almost identical to the exterior of the figure part, but each part constituting the trademark, along with the above figure part, is considerably different, and the trader or ordinary consumers determine the origin of the goods through the text part rather than the figure part, so there is no possibility that the traders or consumers who substitute two trademarks may cause confusion as to the origin of the goods.

B. The Defendant is a person operating a store in an arboretum, not a store specialized in selling toyss, and sold pets attached with the trademark of this case without knowing the trademark of this case, and visited the store.