All of the appeals filed by the prosecutor with respect to the acquittal of the defendant A and B in the judgment of the court below.

가. 피고인 A (1) 사실 오인 및 법리 오해 ㈎ 상표법위반의 점 피고인이 P에게 판매한 ‘O’( 피고인이 P에게 공급한 해당 상품을 이하 ‘ 이 사건 O’ 이라 한다) 18,000개가 위조되었다는 증거가 없거나 부족하고, 가사 위조된 것이라 하더라도 피고인으로서는 위조사실을 인식하지 못하였다.

㈏ 사기의 점 이 부분 공소사실이 유죄로 인정되려면, 피고인이 P에게 판매한 이 사건 O의 내용물이 ‘S’( 이하 ‘S’ 이라 한다) 이고, 그 S 내용물에 N 상표를 도용하여 위조된 제품을 공급하였다는 사실이 전제되어야 하나, 위 전제사실에 대한 입증이 부족하다.

(2) The sentence of the lower court (one year of imprisonment) against an unfair defendant in sentencing is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant C (1) The instantO sold by the Defendant misunderstanding the facts to P is a normalO, not a forged product. Even if the instantO was a forged product, the Defendant was supplied from Z and supplied it to P as is, and thus, did not know of the forged circumstance.

Therefore, the defendant did not have the intention to commit the crime of deception or deception.

(2) The lower court’s sentence (4 months of imprisonment, 1 year of suspended sentence) against an unfair defendant is too unreasonable.

(c)

Comprehensively taking account of the evidence adopted and examined by the lower court by the prosecutor (misunderstanding of the facts as to the acquittal portion against Defendant A and B), the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, even though the Defendants conspired to manufacture O 18,000, and Defendant A conspired to sell the instant O to P, and sufficiently recognized the facts of the Defendants’ conspiracy and participation.

2. Determination

A. Defendant A’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts, misapprehension of legal principles, Defendant C’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts, and Defendant C’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts, and assertion of misapprehension of the legal principles as to Defendant A’