A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.

Certificates of seized fake labels (G) 260,433.

A. The ground for appeal that the statute of limitations has expired on some facts charged by asserting that it is not a comprehensive crime of misunderstanding the legal principles but a substantive concurrent relation, was withdrawn on the second trial of the trial.

The court below found the defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged by misapprehending the legal principles, although the defendant's act of issuing money to B and requesting the introduction of customer will not be deemed to be an illegal solicitation contrary to the social norms.

B. The lower court’s punishment (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable in view of the following: (a) there is no company which actually suffered from the Defendant’s act of unfair sentencing; (b) considerable number of enterprises do not want punishment against the Defendant; and (c) the Defendant’s family suffering from the Defendant’s detention and business shortage.

2. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant's ex officio, the prosecutor examined ex officio prior to the second trial of the court below, and the prosecutor maintained the fraud as to the facts charged in this part of the judgment of the court below as to the withdrawal of violation of the Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act as to No. 510-526 of the attached list 1 of the crime sight of the court below among the facts charged in this case. The court applied for amendments to the indictment with the permission of this court

In addition, since the court below dealt with the above facts charged and the remaining facts charged as concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act and sentenced a single punishment against the defendant, the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained any longer.

However, despite the above reasons for ex officio reversal, the defendant's assertion of misapprehension of legal principles is still subject to the judgment of this court, which will be examined below.

3. The lower court’s judgment on the Defendant’s assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine is the crime of giving property in breach of trust.