상표법위반
The judgment below
The part against the Defendants is reversed.
Defendants shall be punished by imprisonment for one year and six months.
(b).
1. The gist of the grounds for appeal is that the lower court’s respective punishment (one and half years of imprisonment with prison labor for Defendant C: three years of suspended execution in one and half years of imprisonment with prison labor for Defendant D; 80 hours of community service) against the Defendants is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. Defendant C infringed upon the legitimate trademark right holder’s right, and at the same time disturbs the market economy order and damages the consumer’s trust, and the nature of the crime is not good. The Defendant played an important role in the process of the instant crime, and provided a similar drawing and a trademark attached by the victim company to supply household glass, which is disadvantageous to the Defendant. The fact that part of the similar panel of this case was distributed in Korea is disadvantageous to the Defendant.
However, in full view of the fact that the defendant was found to have committed a crime in the first instance trial, that the victim company did not want to punish the defendant in the first instance trial, that there was no record of having been sentenced to punishment exceeding the same criminal record or fine, and all other sentencing conditions in the argument of this case, the sentence of the court below is too unreasonable.
B. Defendant D’s crime of this case infringes upon the legitimate trademark right holder’s right, and at the same time disturbs the market economy order and damages the consumer’s trust, which is disadvantageous to the Defendant.
On the other hand, however, the court below's punishment is too unreasonable in light of the fact that the defendant was found to have committed a crime in the first instance, that the victim company did not want punishment against the defendant by mutual consent with the victim company in the first instance trial, that there was no record of having been sentenced to punishment exceeding the same criminal record or fine, that there was an old age, and all other sentencing conditions as shown in the argument of this case.
C. Therefore, the Defendants’ respective opinions are as follows.