Part concerning Defendant A and B shall be reversed.

Defendant

A and B shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

(b).

The punishment imposed by the court below on the defendants (the defendant C: 10 months of imprisonment, 2 years of probation, 120 hours of community service, 120 hours of evidence 1 through 10, 14, 15 each confiscation, 40, 500,00 won, Defendant A: fine of 1.5 million won, Defendant B: fine of 1.5 million won, and fine of 1.5 million won) is too unreasonable.

Judgment

According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, Defendant A was found to have violated the Trademark Act by the trademark right holder's right since the judgment of the court below as to the grounds for appeal against Defendant A and B was ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal against Defendant A and B, and the principal legal interest protected by the Trademark Act is the business reputation of the trademark right holder (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Do10759, Jul. 14, 201). Defendant B had no error of law by misapprehending the legal principles on MCM (Registration No. 702894, Nov. 15, 2012) and MCM (Korean Intellectual Property Office No. 702894) from around October 2012 to around November 15, 2012, and since the main legal interest of violation of the Trademark Act is the business reputation of the trademark right holder, the part of the court below's judgment can be seen to be concurrently transferred to the trademark right holder and the trademark right holder's.

The prosecutor's assertion of unfair sentencing against Defendant C is examined as to the prosecutor's assertion of unfair sentencing, and the crime of this case is manufactured by the representative and manager of a considerable quantity of the defendant C while operating a factory for more than one year.