2. The defendants reflects their mistakes in depth, and there are no criminal records of the same kind. However, the court below seems to have determined the punishment by fully considering such circumstances (in particular, the amount of fine has been reduced considering the circumstances in which the degree of participation in Defendant B was minor). The crime of violating the Trademark Act is necessary to infringe upon the legitimate trademark right holder's right, to disrupt the market economy and to severely punish the consumers' trust, and to disrupt the market economy, to the extent that the number of the products bearing a forged trademark that the defendants attempted to sell is reasonable, and the products have been diverse by a bank, wall, bell, visibility, visibility, etc., and other various sentencing conditions shown in the arguments of this case, such as the age, character, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, etc., the punishment sentenced by the court below is reasonable.

3. In conclusion, the Defendants’ appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the Defendants’ appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.