A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

However, the execution of a sentence shall be suspended for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

Article 230 of the Trademark Act prohibits an act of infringement of trademark rights, where any person delivers, sells, forges, imitates, or possesses a trademark identical or similar to another person's registered trademark for the purpose of using it for goods identical or similar to the designated goods, or for the purpose of using it for goods identical or similar to the designated goods, or possesses goods identical or similar to the designated goods bearing another person's registered trademark or any similar trademark, and Article 230 of the Trademark Act prohibits an act of infringement of trademark rights. The specific types of prohibited infringement of trademark rights are stipulated in Article 108(1)1

All of the facts charged in the instant case refers only to the types of acts under subparagraphs 1 (use of a trademark, etc.) and 2 (Possession of a trademark, etc.) in accordance with the general business practices of the court and the prosecution (the difference between the Supreme Court precedents on patent law and the regulations of copyright law). However, in the facts charged, the Defendant’s act of infringement of trademark rights in itself constitutes the types of acts under subparagraphs 4 (Possession of goods bearing a trademark) and this constitutes a violation under Article 230 of the Trademark Act (see Supreme Court Decision 2017Do10568, Sept. 21, 2017). Since the specific attitude of the Defendant’s act of infringement of trademark rights is clearly specified in the facts charged, the Defendant’s act of infringement of trademark rights in itself constitutes a violation of Article 230 of the Trademark Act (see Supreme Court Decision 2017Do10568, Sept. 21, 2017).

shall not be subject to any provision of this section.

Nevertheless, around 14:00 on December 10, 2017, the Defendant sold 314 points, such as 41 points on the bit learning clothes with a forged trademark identical or similar to D'D' trademark registered with the Korean Intellectual Property Office (registration number E) registered with the Korean Intellectual Property Office at the front of Guro-gu Seoul, Guro-gu, Seoul, and 28 points below.