2. First of all, we examine Defendant A’s unfair argument about sentencing, and consider the fact that the above Defendant’s husband committed the instant crime in order to care for the married children after being detained as a violation of the Trademark Act on April 2013. However, the above Defendant already committed the instant crime even though there had been one time of suspended execution, fine one time, and one time of suspended indictment due to the crime of violating the Trademark Act, which again led to the instant crime; the size of the instant crime was not small; and the Defendant continued to commit the instant crime even after the husband’s release; in light of the fact that the Defendant committed the instant crime after the husband’s release, the sentence determined by the court below by taking into account the sentencing factors as stated in its reasoning is appropriate and too unreasonable; and it is also justifiable to additionally collect the amount equivalent to the price for the goods infringing the trademark right.

Next, we examine the unfair argument of sentencing by Defendant C, as seen by the lower court, and examine the sentencing factors of the above Defendant. In addition to the fact that the above Defendant was using the name of AB, which is one of his words, in the currency to take a schedule of attendance with the prosecution investigator and the prosecution investigator, and that it was discovered that AB was present at the prosecutor's office instead of the prosecutor's office, the sentence determined by the lower court is appropriate and too unreasonable.

3. Accordingly, the Defendants’ appeal is dismissed in entirety under Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that all of the appeals are without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.