Current location - Trademark Inquiry Complete Network - Trademark inquiry - Will selling fake cigarettes and wine worth 8,000 yuan be sentenced?
Will selling fake cigarettes and wine worth 8,000 yuan be sentenced?
Couples selling fake cigarettes and wine for profit were sentenced to open a shop together.

Author: Liu Xiufen Criminal Court Zhao Shuo Date of Release: 2012-08-1317: 04:15.

Recently, Zhungeer Banner publicly pronounced the case of the defendants Xie and Zhou illegally operating according to law. The defendant Xie was sentenced to two years in prison, suspended for two years, and fined 20,000 yuan. The defendant was sentenced to one year's imprisonment, suspended for one year, and fined 10000 yuan for the crime of illegal business operation.

On 20 1 1 year 1 1 month, the defendant Xie Mou and his wife Zhou opened a shop in Zhungeer Banner to sell cigarettes. At the beginning of 20 12, the defendant Xie bought 273 bottles of fake wine 1 18 and fake cigarettes illegally and sold them. Zhou helped her husband sell fake cigarettes. On March 20 12, Zhungeerqi Tobacco Monopoly Bureau found that the store had no tobacco monopoly license, and seized 208 cigarettes of Soft China, Hard China, Yellow Crane Tower (Soft Language) and Su Yan (Soft Jinsha) on the spot, with a value of 68,565.00 yuan. Appraised by the Tobacco Quality Supervision and Inspection Station of Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region, 208 cigarettes are counterfeit and shoddy goods. At the same time, Wuliangye, Haizhilan, Fang Shuijing, Maotai and other wines were seized 1 18 bottles, with a value of 12259 1.00 yuan. Appraised by liquor manufacturers of various brands, 1 18 bottles of liquor are counterfeit and shoddy products. After the incident, the defendant Xie Mou took the initiative to surrender to the public security organ.

In this case, the defendants Xie and Zhou illegally operated, disrupting the market order and the circumstances were serious. Their actions constitute the crime of illegal business operation, and they are all crimes of * * *. Because the defendant Xie surrendered himself and the defendant Zhou was an accomplice, the court made the above judgment.