상표법위반
The judgment below
The guilty portion against Defendant B shall be reversed.
Defendant
Annex B among the facts charged against B
The summary of the reasons for appeal by Defendant A is that the punishment prescribed by the court of the original trial (the punishment amounting to three million won, confiscation) by Defendant A is too unreasonable.
Defendant
B The guilty part of the judgment of the court below in the judgment of the court below is a mistake of fact, which affected the judgment.
In addition, the punishment prescribed by the court of the court below (one million won) is too unreasonable.
Judgment
Defendant
As to the A's unfair argument of sentencing, the defendant seems to have led to the confession and reflect on the crime.
It is also considered that there is no criminal record.
However, the criminal liability of the defendant is not against the law.
The Defendant’s assertion that the amount of a fine for summary order (the amount of a fine imposed by the prosecutor) should be reduced to the extent equivalent to the percentage of the entire facts charged is difficult to accept.
The equity between similar sentencing cases of the same kind of crime shall also be considered.
The court of the court below rendered the sentence against the defendant by taking account of the aforementioned various positive and negative circumstances.
The judgment below
There is no new circumstance that can be considered in sentencing as a result of the sentence.
In addition, in full view of various sentencing conditions stipulated in Article 51 of the Criminal Act, such as the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, motive, means, and consequence of the commission of the crime, the circumstances before and after the commission of the crime, it shall not be deemed that the lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable.
Defendant
The key issue is whether Defendant B knew of the violation of the Trademark Act as to the assertion of mistake of facts B.
The defendant denies consistently in the court below's decision and the party's decision.
There is no suspect who has been examined by a prosecutor.
Examining the witness F’s statement in the fourth public trial protocol of the lower court, there is no content as to whether Defendant B was aware of.
The testimony of the witness A at the trial court is supported by the denial of the defendant.
On the defendant B prepared by the judicial police officer.