Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. In light of the fact that C made a statement in the prosecutorial office that "the defendant was engaged in the business together with the defendant," and that the statement in E's court which corresponds to the defendant's defense was proved to have been an perjury, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant on the basis of the statement in E's court of original trial is erroneous.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged is as follows: (The reasons for the judgment of multiple times) is as stated in the facts charged.

B. As to the above facts charged, the lower court determined that: (a) the Defendant, based on the witness G and E’s statement at each court of the lower court; (b) the Defendant was somewhat lacking intellectual ability, such as receiving treatment from a mental hospital due to traffic accidents around March 16, 1995; (c) on July 16, 201, it is almost impossible to communicate because of traffic accidents again; (d) E, upon the request of the police, introduced the Defendant to C at the time of sending a statement on behalf of the Defendant; (c) the Defendant, except for the fact that he/she was investigated by the police, provided that there was no other evidence to acknowledge the Defendant’s permanent telephone call from March 26, 201 to 3:14:6 on April 26, 201; and (d) during the same day, it appears that there was no other evidence to acknowledge the Defendant’s permanent telephone call from the police station to 3:10 on April 16, 2011 to 3:14.

C. The Defendant, in collusion with C, sells a fake trademark, or sells goods bearing the trademark.