Before being amended and promulgated on June 29, 2011, the crime for sale or intent to sell infringing articles referred to Article 82 of the Trademark Act. After the revision came into effect on July 1, 2012, this crime refers to Article 97 of the Trademark Act, which was only revised to contain the acts performed through electronic media or on the Internet, without amending the statutory sentence. The court should apply the law in force at the time of judgment because the penalty was not substantially changed. Therefore, there is no need to compare the old and the new laws.

Based on this explanation, because the primary sentence is the same, the new law is neither more advantageous nor less advantageous to the defendant, the court should apply the law in force at the time of judgment, without the need to compare the new and the old laws. Before being amended and promulgated on June 29, 2011, compulsory confiscation referred to Article 83 of the Trademark Act. After the revision came into force on July 1, 2012, it refers to Article 98 of the Trademark Act. The provision on compulsory confiscation remains the same, with only some change of wording, and the penalty remains substantially the same. The court needs not compare the new and the old laws.

Furthermore, after coming into effect of the revised law, based on the integrity of law and the principle that the subordinate sentence should be affiliated with the principal sentence, the court should apply Article 98 of the Trademark Act in force at the time of judgment for the subordinate sentence.

The law in force at the time of judgment, Compulsory confiscation, Integrity of law, Principle that the subordinate sentence should be affiliated with the primary sentence principle