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

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won shall be one day.

Punishment of the crime

No one shall infringe on any other person's trademark right by using a trademark identical or similar to another person's registered trademark on goods identical or similar to the designated goods.

Nevertheless, from September 5, 2017 to September 11, 2017, the Defendant displayed and sold the bags with the door of the virtual shape registered with the trademark, in which the damaged party in the F store operated by the Defendant in Jung-gu Seoul, Jung-gu, Seoul. G (representative director: H) (H) was displayed and sold in the above store, thereby infringing the victim’s trademark right.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Statement made by the police with H;

1. Application of the trademark registration certificate and investigation report (Presentation of victim's Internet sales notice)-related Acts and subordinate statutes;

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. Article 236(1) of the Trademark Act that the defendant and his defense counsel did not use the trademark of the victim since they did not manufacture the bank of this case.

The argument is asserted.

As long as the Defendant purchased and sold the instant bags, the Defendant used the victim’s trademark.

It can be sufficiently recognized, and if the interpretation of the Trademark Act is in accordance with the defendant's assertion, retail stores that purchase and sell household goods are not fully responsible for them, and the above assertion is not acceptable.

In addition, the defendant and his defense counsel did not know the victim's trademark, and they are somewhat different from the trademark of the bank of this case, so the defendant did not have the intention of trademark infringement.

The argument is asserted.

In contrast, the following circumstances recognized by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this Court, namely, ① the trademark registered by the victim is combined with “I” and “J”, and the trademark is protected from the above registered trademark as a trademark with the equivalent shape.

It appears that it appears in this case, ② it appears that it appears to be flexible in the instant bags.