농수산물의원산지표시에관한법률위반등
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months and by a fine not exceeding 4,00,000 won.
The above fine shall be imposed on the defendant.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. In light of the fact that the Defendant made a confession on the violation of the Trademark Act by the prosecution, and that the Defendant’s statement in the O’s original trial court, the representative director of G Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “G”), which is the defendant’s representative director, reversed the consistent statement in the investigative agency that there is no fact that the Defendant permitted the use of the trademark right of this case without reasonable grounds, the lower court acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged of violating the Trademark Act on the ground that theO allowed the use of the trademark right of this case on the ground that theO allowed the use of the trademark right of this case, notwithstanding the fact that theO did not recognize the fact that
B. In light of the overall conditions of sentencing sentencing, the sentence of imprisonment (two months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, and fine of 4,000,000) by the lower court is too unjustifiable and unreasonable.
2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts
A. The lower court, based on the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court, stated in the following circumstances: (a) the Defendant’s statement at the prosecutor’s office and the O’s investigative agency as evidence that conforms to the violation of the Trademark Act among the facts charged; (b) the Defendant led to the confession of the aforementioned facts charged to the effect that “it has not been permitted by theO” (116 pages); (c) theO led the Defendant to the prosecution that “it has not been permitted to use the trademark; and (d) the Defendant prepared and made a confirmation document as the Defendant did.” However, the lower court stated that “the Defendant allowed the Defendant to use the G trademark on September 201, 20, and the investigative agency made a false statement on behalf of the Defendant,” and that “theO made a false statement on behalf of the Defendant.”